[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228154412.2971.44.camel@nimitz>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:00:12 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v10][PATCH 05/13] Dump memory address space
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 10:53 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > +static int cr_ctx_checkpoint(struct cr_ctx *ctx, pid_t pid)
> > +{
> > + ctx->root_pid = pid;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * assume checkpointer is in container's root vfs
> > + * FIXME: this works for now, but will change with real containers
> > + */
> > + ctx->vfsroot = ¤t->fs->root;
> > + path_get(ctx->vfsroot);
>
> This is going to break as soon as you get another thread doing e.g. chroot(2)
> while you are in there.
Yeah, we do need at least a read_lock(¤t->fs->lock) to keep people
from chroot()'ing underneath us.
> And it's a really, _really_ bad idea to take a
> pointer to shared object, increment refcount on the current *contents* of
> said object and assume that dropping refcount on the later contents of the
> same will balance out.
Absolutely. I assume you mean get_fs_struct(current) instead of
path_get().
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists