* Dave Hansen ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 17:57 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Dave Hansen ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > -void __init msg_init (void)
> > > +void __init msg_init (struct ipc_msg_context *context)
> > > {
> > > - ipc_init_ids(&msg_ids,msg_ctlmni);
> > > + ipc_init_ids(&context->ids,msg_ctlmni);
> > > ipc_init_proc_interface("sysvipc/msg",
> > > " key msqid perms cbytes qnum lspid lrpid uid gid cuid cgid stime rtime ctime\n",
> > > - &msg_ids,
> > > + &context->ids,
> > > sysvipc_msg_proc_show);
> >
> > Does that mean /proc interface only gets init_task context?
> > Along those lines, I think now ipcs -a is incomplete from admin
> > perspective. Suppose that's a feature from the container/vserver
> > POV.
>
> It will get context from the current task, which means the current
> container. We haven't quite decided how these things will be (or if
> they need to be) aggregated on a a system-wide basis.
The /proc interface is registering with &context->ids of init_task. So,
all other contexts using that interface will be looking at the wrong
info, AFAICT.
As you can tell my concerns are in resource consumption. If a user can
create contexts which it can hide from sysadmin, and they aren't subject
to sysadmin mandated resource limits, it's effectively a leak, esp. since
these resources don't die with exit(2).
thanks,
-chris
-
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]
