Oren Laadan [orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
| > +
| > + if (num_pids < 0 || num_pids > task_pid(current)->level + 1)
| > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
|
| What happens if (num_pids < task_pid(current->level) + 1) ?
| Unless I missed something elsewhere, I suspect it will oops,
Yep. the kzalloc() below this check should use:
task_pid(current)->pid_ns->level+1 * sizeof(pid_t)
| because in patch #4, you had:
|
| for (i = ns->level; i >= 0; i--) {
| - nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp, 0);
| + tpid = 0;
| + if (target_pids)
| + tpid = target_pids[i];
| +
| + nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp, tpid);
| if (nr < 0)
| goto out_free;
|
| In general, can a task figure out it's depth in the pid-ns hierarchy ?
|
| I'm thinking of a case in which a checkpoint was taken of a (flat)
| container which is in depth 2 of the global hierarchy, and then it
| is restarted in depth 3, or in depth 1.
|
| Perhaps the semantics of the syscall should be that target_pids will
| indicate the desired pids _from the bottom up_. A value of "0" means
Hmm, I thought bottom up would be confusing, but I guess that would
work better :-) Will fix and resend.
| "don't care" and let the kernel assign. The remaining levels (upwards)
| will be treated as zeros.
|
| [...]
|
| Oren.
|
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
