sorry for delay, vacation...
On 04/28, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> On 27.04.2017 19:22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Ah, OK, I didn't notice the ns->child_reaper check in pidns_for_children_get().
> >
> > But note that it doesn't need tasklist_lock too.
>
> Hm, are there possible strange situations with memory ordering, when we see
> ns->child_reaper of already died ns, which was placed in the same memory?
> Do we have to use some memory barriers here?
Could you spell please? I don't understand your concerns...
I don't see how, say,
static struct ns_common *pidns_for_children_get(struct task_struct *task)
{
struct ns_common *ns = NULL;
struct pid_namespace *pid_ns;
task_lock(task);
if (task->nsproxy) {
pid_ns = task->nsproxy->pid_ns_for_children;
if (pid_ns->child_reaper) {
ns = &pid_ns->ns;
get_pid_ns(ns);
}
}
task_unlock(task);
return ns;
}
can be wrong. It also looks more clean to me.
->child_reaper is not stable without tasklist, it can be dead/etc, but
we do not care?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
