Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Oren Laadan wrote: > >>Nadia Derbey wrote: >> >>>Oren Laadan wrote: >>> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>A couple of weeks ago, a discussion has started after Pierre's >>>>>proposal for >>>>>a new syscall to change an ipc id (see thread >>>>>http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/29/209). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oren's suggestion was to force an object's id during its creation, >>>>>rather >>>>>than 1. create it, 2. change its id. >>>>> >>>>>So here is an implementation of what Oren has suggested. >>>>> >>>>>2 new files are defined under /proc/self: >>>>> . next_ipcid --> next id to use for ipc object creation >>>>> . next_pids --> next upid nr(s) to use for next task to be forked >>>>> (see patch #2 for more details). >>>> >>>>Generally looks good. One meta-comment, though: >>>> >>>>I wonder why you use separate files for separate resources, >>> >>>That would be needed in a situation wheere we don't care about next, >>>say, ipc id to be created but we need a predefined pid. But I must admit >>>I don't see any pratical application to it. >> >>exactly; why set the next-ipc value so far in advance ? I think it's >>better (and less confusing) if we require that setting the next-id value >>be done right before the respective syscall. > > > And race with some other syscall caller? This will only work if the > next-ipc-id > and the next-pid are on a task_struct. Are they (at least supposed to be > such)? > >
Yes they are. Regards, Nadia _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel