Re: [PATCH 0/2] exit/pid_ns: comments + simple fix

[Eric W. Biederman]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Eric, Pavel, could you review 1/2 ? (documentation only). It is based on the
> code inspection, I didn't bother to verify that my understanding matches the
> reality ;)

Oleg you are being subtle, introducing some gratuitous changes and
slightly off base which makes this all very hard to review.

Eric


> On 11/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>>
>> Probably this is not the last series... in particular it seems that we
>> have some problems with sys_setns() in this area, but I need to recheck.
>
> So far only the documentation fix. I'll write another email (hopefully with the
> patch), afaics at least setns() doesn't play well with PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER.
>
> Contrary to what I thought zap_pid_ns_processes() looks fine, but it seems only
> by accident. Unless I am totally confused, wait for "nr_hashed == init_pids"
> could be removed after 0a01f2cc390e10633a "pidns: Make the pidns proc mount/
> umount logic obvious". However, now that setns() + fork() can inject a task
> into a child namespace, we need this code again for another reason.
>
> I _think_ we can actually remove it and simplify free_pid() as well, but lets
> discuss this later and fix the wrong/confusing documentation first.
>
> 2/2 looks "obviously correct", but I'll appreciate your review anyway.
>
> Oleg.
>
>  kernel/pid.c           |    7 +++----
>  kernel/pid_namespace.c |   23 +++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/