Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> From: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Changes: >> - Update to match UTS changes >> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Oren Laadan <orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > However... > >> + if (!!ipc_ns ^ !(flags & CLONE_NEWIPC)) >> + return -EINVAL; > > Every time I see this I have to think about whether it is right or not. > I'm not sure whether it's worth commenting (at each such meme) that > CLONE_NEWIPC only needed to be set the first time we ran across that > ipcns, or whether it's indicative that there is a simpler way the code > could be done. But if it just took me a twice-over to see that it's > right, when I'd already confirmed that with the CLONE_NEWUTS version > last week, then a fresh reviewer will be cursing your name... This is a consistency check: ensure that the state of the objhash as reflected in the value of ipc_ns is consistent with the flags. I'll add a comment. Oren. > > -serge > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
