Quoting Dan Smith (danms@xxxxxxxxxx): > SH> why only free iov_base if ret!=0? > > Because I was diagnosing a crash that only seemed to happen when I > free()'d the buffer after it was used by sendmsg() and I forgot to > remove this :( > > >> + a->sk_peercred.pid = task_tgid_vnr(current); > >> + a->sk_peercred.uid = ctx->realcred->uid; > > SH> I don't know how much it matters, but of course root could be > SH> restarting a set of tasks owned by several non-root uids, and the > SH> peercred.uid's might need to be something other than > ctx-> realcred->uid. Or not? > > Oh, so you're suggesting I use ctx->ecred instead? I didn't actually > notice the double declaration in the ckpt_ctx, but I guess that would > be better. No, I'm suggesting that the checkpointed application might have had tasks owned by uids 0, 3, 55, and 1001, and a.peercred.uid might have been 1001, right? current, ctx->realcred->uid, and ctx->ecred might all be different uids. I think you just need to checkpoint the uid (eventually an objref to a checkpointed user struct so we can also catch the user namespace). -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
