On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:54 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> [PATCH 08/08]
> 
> This patch is the enhancement as asked for by Yasunori: if msgmni is set to
> a negative value, register it back into the ipcns notifier chain.
> 
> A new interface has been added to the notification mechanism:
> notifier_chain_cond_register() registers a notifier block only if not already
> registered. With that new interface we avoid taking care of the states changes
> in procfs.
> 
> ...
>
>  static int proc_ipc_callback_dointvec(ctl_table *table, int write,
>       struct file *filp, void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> +     struct ctl_table ipc_table;
>       size_t lenp_bef = *lenp;
>       int rc;
>  
> -     rc = proc_ipc_dointvec(table, write, filp, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> +     memcpy(&ipc_table, table, sizeof(ipc_table));
> +     ipc_table.data = get_ipc(table);
> +
> +     rc = proc_dointvec(&ipc_table, write, filp, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>  
>       if (write && !rc && lenp_bef == *lenp)
> -             /*
> -              * Tunable has successfully been changed from userland:
> -              * disable its automatic recomputing.
> -              */
> -             unregister_ipcns_notifier(current->nsproxy->ipc_ns);
> +             tunable_set_callback(*((int *)(ipc_table.data)));
>  
>       return rc;
>  }
> @@ -119,12 +142,14 @@ static int sysctl_ipc_registered_data(ct
>       rc = sysctl_ipc_data(table, name, nlen, oldval, oldlenp, newval,
>               newlen);
>  
> -     if (newval && newlen && rc > 0)
> +     if (newval && newlen && rc > 0) {
>               /*
> -              * Tunable has successfully been changed from userland:
> -              * disable its automatic recomputing.
> +              * Tunable has successfully been changed from userland
>                */
> -             unregister_ipcns_notifier(current->nsproxy->ipc_ns);
> +             int *data = get_ipc(table);
> +
> +             tunable_set_callback(*data);
> +     }
>  
>       return rc;
>  }

hm, what's happening here?  We take a local copy of the caller's ctl_table
and then pass that into proc_dointvec().  Is that as hacky as it seems??


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to