[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m162o6lxp4.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:08:23 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
serge@...lyn.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:)
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> On 06/15, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>
>> @@ -176,6 +177,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>> if (tracer)
>> tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns);
>> }
>> + actpid = 0;
>> + sighand = rcu_dereference(p->sighand);
>> + if (sighand) {
>> + struct pid_namespace *pid_ns;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags);
>
> Well. This is not exactly right. We have lock_task_sighand() for this.
>
> But. Why do you need ->siglock? Why rcu_read_lock() is not enough?
>
> Hmm. You don't even need pid_ns afaics, you could simply look at
> pid->numbers[pid->level].
I got this moving in that direction, but I admit I probably didn't look
close enough. I just remember it is always tricky when accessing a
process and dealing with races with things like unhash_process().
Eric
--
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