Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 07/26, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
-struct pid *alloc_pid(void)
+struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
Why? We have the only caller, copy_process(), ns == task_active_pid_ns()
always.
task_active_pid_ns() by newly created task, not the current! That's why
we need to pass something to alloc_pid() to find this new namespace.
Task or namespace itself - is the matter of choice - I selected the
most obvious argument :)
{
struct pid *pid;
enum pid_type type;
- int nr = -1;
- struct pid_namespace *ns;
+ int i, nr;
+ struct pid_namespace *tmp;
- ns = task_active_pid_ns(current);
pid = kmem_cache_alloc(ns->pid_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!pid)
goto out;
- nr = alloc_pidmap(ns);
- if (nr < 0)
- goto out_free;
+ tmp = ns;
+ for (i = ns->level; i >= 0; i--) {
+ nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp);
+ if (nr < 0)
+ goto out_free;
+
+ pid->numbers[i].nr = nr;
+ pid->numbers[i].ns = tmp;
+ tmp = tmp->parent;
Hm... There is no ->parent in "struct pid_namespace", and this
patch doesn't add it.
Parent is added in another patch - 12/15. I will split it better
when sending to Andrew - patches will be smaller and bisect-safe.
+ if (ns != &init_pid_ns)
+ get_pid_ns(ns);
Q: put_pid() checks "ns != &init_pid_ns" as well, this is just
an optimization, yes? Perhaps we can move this check into
It is :)
get_pid_ns/put_pid_ns.
I think you're right.
We are doing get_pid_ns() only for the "top namespace"... I guess
this can work if pid_namespace does get_pid_ns() on its ->parent.
This patch looks incomplete.
Yes. This set is not well split, sorry. I wanted to get comments about the
approach, bugs, etc (I have already mentioned this in another letter...)
Oleg.
Thanks,
Pavel.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
