On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:11 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Similar to fd_install/__fd_install, we want to be able to replace an fd of
> an arbitrary struct files_struct, not just current's. We'll use this in the
> next patch to implement the seccomp ioctl that allows inserting fds into a
> stopped process' context.
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
> index 7ffd6e9d103d..3b3c5aadaadb 100644
> --- a/fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/file.c
> @@ -850,24 +850,32 @@ __releases(&files->file_lock)
> }
>
> int replace_fd(unsigned fd, struct file *file, unsigned flags)
> +{
> + return replace_fd_task(current, fd, file, flags);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Same warning as __alloc_fd()/__fd_install() here.
> + */
> +int replace_fd_task(struct task_struct *task, unsigned fd,
> + struct file *file, unsigned flags)
> {
> int err;
> - struct files_struct *files = current->files;
Why did you remove this? You could just do s/current/task/ instead, right?
> if (!file)
> - return __close_fd(files, fd);
> + return __close_fd(task->files, fd);
>
> - if (fd >= rlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE))
> + if (fd >= task_rlimit(task, RLIMIT_NOFILE))
> return -EBADF;
>
> - spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> - err = expand_files(files, fd);
> + spin_lock(&task->files->file_lock);
> + err = expand_files(task->files, fd);
> if (unlikely(err < 0))
> goto out_unlock;
> - return do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> + return do_dup2(task->files, file, fd, flags);
>
> out_unlock:
> - spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&task->files->file_lock);
> return err;
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/file.h b/include/linux/file.h
> index 6b2fb032416c..f94277fee038 100644
> --- a/include/linux/file.h
> +++ b/include/linux/file.h
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> #include <linux/posix_types.h>
>
> struct file;
> +struct task_struct;
>
> extern void fput(struct file *);
>
> @@ -79,6 +80,13 @@ static inline void fdput_pos(struct fd f)
>
> extern int f_dupfd(unsigned int from, struct file *file, unsigned flags);
> extern int replace_fd(unsigned fd, struct file *file, unsigned flags);
> +/*
> + * Warning! This is only safe if you know the owner of the files_struct is
> + * stopped outside syscall context. It's a very bad idea to use this unless you
> + * have similar guarantees in your code.
> + */
> +extern int replace_fd_task(struct task_struct *task, unsigned fd,
> + struct file *file, unsigned flags);
I think Linux kernel coding style is normally to have comments on the
implementations of functions, not in the headers? Maybe replace the
warning above the implemenation of replace_fd_task() with this
comment.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
