[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49c34e82-54a8-642d-18ab-1b876cbe709a@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:59:12 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <cbrauner@...e.de>, dev@...ncontainers.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup: allow for unprivileged subtree management
>> +static int cgroup_permission(struct inode *inode, struct kernfs_node *kn,
>> + int mask)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + struct cgroup *cgroup;
>> + struct cgroup_namespace *cgroupns;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * First, compute the generic_permission return value. In most cases
>> + * this will succeed and we can also avoid duplicating this code.
>> + */
>> +
>> + cgroup = kn->priv;
>> + cgroup_get(cgroup);
>
> This pattern which is repated for cgroupns doesn't make sense. The
> code is already assuming that the cgroup is safe to deref. Getting
> its reference doesn't do anything. Getting it here would only make
> sense if the pointer is passed to an asynchronous context.
I'll send out a fixed patchset once we figure out the
cgroups_proc_write_permission() stuff.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists