Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >> @@ -426,11 +431,11 @@ static int devcgroup_access_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> >> const char *buffer)
> >> {
> >> int retval;
> >> - if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> >
> > Does it matter that we no longer check for cgroup_is_removed()?
> >
>
> No, this means in a rare case that the write handler is called when the cgroup
> is dead, we still do the update work instead of returning ENODEV.
>
> This is ok, since at that time, accessing cgroup and devcgroup is still valid,
> but will have no effect since there is no task in this cgroup and the cgroup
> will be destroyed soon.
Ok, just wanted to make sure the devcgroup couldn't be partially torn
down and risking NULL or freed-memory derefs...
BTW is that against linux-next? (didn't seem to apply cleanly against
my 2.6.29-rc9) I guess I'd like to do a little test before acking,
though it looks ok based on your answer.
thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
