[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120527191032.GB13929@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:10:32 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@...labs.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: [PATCH v2 -mm 0/1] pidns: find_new_reaper() can no longer switch
to init_pid_ns.child_reaper
On 05/25, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > Change find_new_reaper() to use pid_ns->parent->child_reaper.
>
> Oleg this is a good catch for a real problem. However I disagree about
> the fix.
>
> We should make unhash_process say:
> if ((task_active_pid_ns(parent)->child_reaper == parent) &&
Damn, I hate you^W^W^W thanks a lot Eric.
Indeed! Not only this is more simple, this is just more natural!
> And we should just set delete the code after zap_pid_ns_processes
Yes, this is clear.
> We could set pid_ns.child_reaper to NULL after that
> but why bother.
Agreed. Plus I do not think that pid_ns.child_reaper == NULL looks
good even if this doesn't matter currently.
OK, please see v2. Note that I moved detach_pid(PIDTYPE_PID) back.
Yes, yes, there is no real reason to do this. Just I think that if
someone look at these changes later, it is not easy to understand
why it was moved down.
Thanks!
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