[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090119221130.GB25598@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:11:30 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs: fix the wrong usage of the deprecated
task_pgrp_nr()
Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> On 01/19, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> > >
> > > This is the next patch. This one does
> > >
> > > --- CUR/fs/autofs/inode.c~1_AUTOFS 2009-01-12 23:07:46.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ CUR/fs/autofs/inode.c 2009-01-18 06:18:49.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int parse_options(char *options,
> > >
> > > *uid = current_uid();
> > > *gid = current_gid();
> > > - *pgrp = task_pgrp_nr(current);
> > > + *pgrp = task_pgrp_vnr(current);
> >
> > Ok, that was the one I had looked at earlier (though now I can't find
> > it). But that just seems wrong to me. We should certainly not be
> > caching a pid_vnr in the kernel. That is imo incomparably worse than
> > storing a pid_nr.
>
> We do not cache it. We use this pgrp as an argument for find_pid()
> right after return from parse_options(). And find_pid() uses
> current->nsproxy->pid_ns. That is why this is bugfix.
So it does. And so it is.
thanks,
-serge
--
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