linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110616145044.GA25379@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:51:10 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was
	Vpid:)

On 06/16, Louis Rilling wrote:
>
> On 16/06/11 15:00 +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > peeking into pid->numbers.
>
> It ends like open-coding an optimized version of task_pid_vnr(). If the
> optimization is really important (I guess this depends on the depth of recursive
> pid namespaces), it would be better to re-write task_pid_vnr().

No, task_pid_vnr(p) is different, it should use the caller's namespace.

Just in case, I agree there is no need to optimize this code. The simpler
the better. I mentioned pid->numbers[pid->level] just to point that all
we need is task_pid() itself, there are no subtle races which need the
locking.

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/