On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:12:49AM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:42:10 -0600, [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
> > The problem by remember a user space process by it's pid it is
> > possible that the process will exit, pid wrap around will occur and a
> > different process will appear in it's place.
>
> ... which is completely all right in this case. We used to have an
> implementation which tried to hold onto the task_struct and that sucked.
> It is only possible for the task to disappear without notifying devio
> under very special conditions only, which involve forking with parent
> exiting. In other words, even a buggy application won't trigger this
> without deliberately trying. And when it happens, uid checks make sure
> that other users are not affected.
>
> > Holding a reference
> > to a struct pid avoid that problem, and paves the way
> > for implementing a pid namespace.
>
> That may be useful.
>
> The patch itself seems straightforward if we can trust your struct
> pid thingies. If OpenVZ people approve, I don't mind.
perfectly fine from my side
best,
Herbert
> -- Pete
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
