Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> | +static int set_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int target)
> | +{
> | + if (target >= pid_max)
> | + return -1;
>
> I am changing this and the next return to 'return -EINVAL', to match
> an earlier patch in my patchset.
>
> | + if (target < RESERVED_PIDS)
>
> Should we replace RESERVED_PIDS with 0 ? We currently allow new
> containers to have pids 1..32K in the first pass and in subsequent
> passes assign starting at RESERVED_PIDS.
If it is a preexisting namespace pid namespace removing the RESERVED_PIDS
check removes most if not all of the point of RESERVED_PIDS.
In a new fresh pid namespace I have no problem with not performing
the RESERVED_PIDS check.
So I guess that makes the check.
if ((target < RESERVED_PIDS) && pid_ns->last_pid >= RESERVED_PIDS)
return -EINVAL;
Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
