On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:15:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:08:28PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > + struct pid *struct_pid;
> > > > + pid_t result;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (flags)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (cmd) {
> > > > + case PIDCMD_QUERY_PID:
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS:
> > > > + if (pid)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case PIDCMD_GET_PIDFD:
> > > > + break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + source_ns = get_pid_ns_by_fd(source);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(source_ns))
> > > > + return PTR_ERR(source_ns);
> > > > +
> > > > + target_ns = get_pid_ns_by_fd(target);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(target_ns)) {
> > > > + put_pid_ns(source_ns);
> > > > + return PTR_ERR(target_ns);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (cmd == PIDCMD_QUERY_PIDNS) {
> > > > + result = pidns_related(source_ns, target_ns);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > + struct_pid = get_pid(find_pid_ns(pid, source_ns));
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > +
> > > > + if (struct_pid)
> > > > + result = pid_nr_ns(struct_pid, target_ns);
> > > > + else
> > > > + result = -ESRCH;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (cmd == PIDCMD_GET_PIDFD && (result > 0))
> > > > + result = pidfd_create_fd(struct_pid, O_CLOEXEC);
> > >
> > > pidfd_create_fd already does put_pid on errors..
> >
> > it also takes its own reference
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!result)
> > > > + result = -ENOENT;
> > > > +
> > > > + put_pid(struct_pid);
> > >
> > > so on error you would put_pid twice which seems odd.. I would suggest, don't
> > > release the pid ref from within pidfd_create_fd, release the ref from the
> > > caller. Speaking of which, I added to my list to convert the pid->count to
> > > refcount_t at some point :)
> >
> > as i said, pidfd_create_fd takes its own reference
>
> Oh. That was easy to miss. Fair enough. I take that comment back.
>
> Please also reply to the other comments I posted, thanks. Generally on LKML,
> I have seen there is an expectation to reply to all reviewer's review
> comments even if you agree with them. This helps keep the review going
> smoothly. Just my 2 cents.
I tend to do it in multiple mails depending on whether or not I need to
think about a comment or not.
