On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 10:53 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > +static int cr_ctx_checkpoint(struct cr_ctx *ctx, pid_t pid) > > +{ > > + ctx->root_pid = pid; > > + > > + /* > > + * assume checkpointer is in container's root vfs > > + * FIXME: this works for now, but will change with real containers > > + */ > > + ctx->vfsroot = ¤t->fs->root; > > + path_get(ctx->vfsroot); > > This is going to break as soon as you get another thread doing e.g. chroot(2) > while you are in there. Yeah, we do need at least a read_lock(¤t->fs->lock) to keep people from chroot()'ing underneath us. > And it's a really, _really_ bad idea to take a > pointer to shared object, increment refcount on the current *contents* of > said object and assume that dropping refcount on the later contents of the > same will balance out. Absolutely. I assume you mean get_fs_struct(current) instead of path_get(). -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers