Oren Laadan [orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
|
|
| Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| > 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.
|
| (Repeating...)
|
| Perhaps bottom-up is a misleading: I don't care about the order...
| I meant that a N size array should affect the last N levels of
| the hierarchy (if it is deeper than N).
Agree.
|
| You could actually keep everything else as is, and change the code
| that copies from user to always allocate a ns->level+1 size array,
| and copy the user data to the end of it, zeroing the beginning.
Yep, good idea.
Sukadev
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
