On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:18:31AM -0500, Ben Blum wrote:
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* optimization for the single-task-only case */
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? rcu_read_unlock();
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cgroup_unlock();
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -ESRCH;
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> > >
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /*
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* even if we're attaching all tasks in the thread group, we
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* only need to check permissions on one of them.
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*/
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?tcred = __task_cred(tsk);
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (cred->euid &&
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?cred->euid != tcred->uid &&
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?cred->euid != tcred->suid) {
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?rcu_read_unlock();
> > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cgroup_unlock();
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -EACCES;
> >
> > Maybe turn these returns into "goto out;" statements and put the
> > unlock after the out: label?
> >
>
> Maybe; I didn't look too hard at that function. If I revise the patch I
> can do this, though.
Looking back, I think I like it the way it is. Coalescing those unlock
paths would make it less clear... rcu_read is unlocked in the middle of
the function (on the success path), so having a bailout path moves the
failure path far removed from where it's relevant.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
