[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140618175807.GA21565@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:58:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>,
Gotou Yasunori <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ns: introduce getnspid syscall
On 06/17, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(getnspid, pid_t, pid, int, fd1, int, fd2, int, pidtype)
> +{
> + struct file *file1 = NULL, *file2 = NULL;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> + struct pid_namespace *ns1, *ns2;
> + struct proc_ns *ei;
> + int ret = -1;
> +
> + if (pidtype >= PIDTYPE_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + file1 = proc_ns_fget(fd1);
> + if (IS_ERR(file1))
> + return PTR_ERR(file1);
> + ei = get_proc_ns(file_inode(file1));
> + ns1 = (struct pid_namespace *)ei->ns;
and I am not sure this part is correct... shouldn't we also verify that
ns_ops == pidns_operations ?
Perhaps it makes sense to generalize get_net_ns_by_fd() into
"void *get_ns_by_fd(fd, type)"... this probably needs another "check-and-get"
method in proc_ns_operations(). I dunno.
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