Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > 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)? yes. that's the first detail I looked for in the patch :) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
