Oren Laadan wrote: > > Nadia Derbey wrote: >> Oren Laadan wrote: >>> >>> Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>>> A couple of weeks ago, a discussion has started after Pierre's >>>> proposal for >>>> a new syscall to change an ipc id (see thread >>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/29/209). >>>> >>>> >>>> Oren's suggestion was to force an object's id during its creation, >>>> rather >>>> than 1. create it, 2. change its id. >>>> >>>> So here is an implementation of what Oren has suggested. >>>> >>>> 2 new files are defined under /proc/self: >>>> . next_ipcid --> next id to use for ipc object creation >>>> . next_pids --> next upid nr(s) to use for next task to be forked >>>> (see patch #2 for more details). >>> >>> Generally looks good. One meta-comment, though: >>> >>> I wonder why you use separate files for separate resources, >> That would be needed in a situation wheere we don't care about next, >> say, ipc id to be created but we need a predefined pid. But I must admit >> I don't see any pratical application to it. > > exactly; why set the next-ipc value so far in advance ? I think it's > better (and less confusing) if we require that setting the next-id value > be done right before the respective syscall. And race with some other syscall caller? This will only work if the next-ipc-id and the next-pid are on a task_struct. Are they (at least supposed to be such)? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
