Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[email protected]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman [[email protected]] wrote: > | +static int set_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int target) > | +{ > | + if (target >= pid_max) > | + return -1; > > I am changing this and the next return to 'return -EINVAL', to match > an earlier patch in my patchset. > > | + if (target < RESERVED_PIDS) > > Should we replace RESERVED_PIDS with 0 ? We currently allow new > containers to have pids 1..32K in the first pass and in subsequent > passes assign starting at RESERVED_PIDS.
If it is a preexisting namespace pid namespace removing the RESERVED_PIDS check removes most if not all of the point of RESERVED_PIDS. In a new fresh pid namespace I have no problem with not performing the RESERVED_PIDS check. So I guess that makes the check. if ((target < RESERVED_PIDS) && pid_ns->last_pid >= RESERVED_PIDS) return -EINVAL; Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
