linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] pidns: don't zap processes several times

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: <CANaxB-xymHL8q8-yjCXQrL0fH7AKk0d4xV_AL77NFKYD=cAdMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 21:41:10 +0400
From:	Andrey Wagin <avagin@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] pidns: don't zap processes several times

2012/10/9 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>:
> On 10/08, Andrey Wagin wrote:
>>
>> 2012/10/7 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>:
>> >
>> > Perhaps we should MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL instead?
>>
>> Yes, we can.
>>
>> Could I just define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL in a code:
>> #define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL ((PAGE_SIZE - offsetof(struct pid, numbers))
>> / sizeof(struct upid))
>
> Or even less. But looks reasonable.
>
>> Or should it be added in a config?
>
> Personally I think that "define" is fine, we can add config/sysctl
> later if needed.

Ok, I'm going to send a patch.

>
>
> Hmm. This is off-topic, but...
>
>         create_pid_namespace:
>
>                 unsigned int level = parent_pid_ns->level + 1;
>                 ns->pid_cachep = create_pid_cachep(level + 1);

Yes, it's correct, because pid->numbers[ns->level] should be valid, so
 a size of an array pid->numbers should be (level + 1).

/*
....
 * @nr_ids: the number of numerical ids this pid will have to carry
 */
static struct kmem_cache *create_pid_cachep(int nr_ids)

>
> is it correct? is seems that only one "+ 1" is needed?
>
> 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/