[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090105124256.GB3313@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:42:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com, bastian@...di.eu.org,
daniel@...ac.com, xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6][v5] Define siginfo_from_ancestor_ns()
On 12/27, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> +static inline int siginfo_from_ancestor_ns(struct task_struct *t,
> + siginfo_t *info)
> +{
> + struct pid_namespace *ns;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure signal is from user-space before checking pid namespace.
> + * (We maybe called from interrupt context and dereferencing
> + * pid namespace would be safe).
> + */
> + if (siginfo_from_user(info)) {
> + /*
> + * If we do not have a pid in the receiver's namespace,
> + * we must be from an ancestor namespace.
> + *
> + * Note:
> + * If receiver is exiting, ns == NULL,
Confused. I thought we alread have the patch which ensures
task_active_pid_ns() is never NULL?
If not, we can get ns from task_pid(t). See also below.
> signal will be
> + * queued but eventually ignored anyway (wants_signal()
> + * is FALSE).
This is only true for thread-specific signals, please remove
this comment,
> + ns = task_active_pid_ns(t);
> + if (!ns || task_pid_nr_ns(current, ns) <= 0)
> + return 1;
See above. In any case, we shouldn't return 1 if ns == NULL.
But afaics we always can know its namespace.
Oleg.
--
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