On 10/07/2013 05:17 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 05:07 AM, Gao feng wrote:
>> On 10/05/2013 02:20 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> +static void cgroup_attach(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
>>> + struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>> +{
>>> + struct task_struct *p;
>>> + void *v;
>>> +
>>> + cgroup_taskset_for_each(p, css, tset) {
>>> + task_lock(p);
>>> + v = (void *)(unsigned long) task_fwid(p);
>>
>> Shouldn't v be css_nf_state(css)->fwid?
>
> Nope, this is in line with net_cls and net_prio; the task has been
> moved there via cgroup backend already through cgroup_attach_task(),
Yes, these tasks have already been migrated to this cgroup.
> so we only need to update each of it's socket sk_cgrp_fwid parts.
Sorry, I still don't know in which situation that css_nf_state(css)->fwid
isn't equal to task_fwid(p).
two threads write the same pid to different cgroup at the same time?
it seems can not happen since we have cgroup_mutex protected.
> css is not strictly for net_filter. See also: 6a328d8c6f (cgroup:
> net_cls: Rework update socket logic)
>
>>> + iterate_fd(p->files, 0, cgroup_fwid_update, v);
>>> + task_unlock(p);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
