On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 13:00 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 12:23 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> +static inline pid_t pid_nr(struct pid *pid)
> >> +{
> >> + pid_t nr = 0;
> >> + if (pid)
> >> + nr = pid->nr;
> >> + return nr;
> >> +}
> >
> > When is it valid to be passing around a NULL 'struct pid *'?
>
> When you don't have one at all. Look at the fcntl case a few
> patches later, or even the spawnpid case.
Does the fcntl() one originate from anywhere other than find_pid() in
f_setown()? It seems like, perhaps, the error checking is being done at
the wrong level.
> Then of course there is the later chaos when we get to pid spaces
> where depending on the pid namespace you are in when you call this
> on a given struct pid sometimes you will get a pid value and sometimes
> you won't.
OK, I think it is makes sense to me to say 'get_pid(tsk, pidspace)' and
get back a NULL 'struct pid' if that task isn't visible in that
namespace. However, I don't get how it is handy to be able to defer the
fact that the pid wasn't found until you go do a pid_nr() on that NULL.
-- Dave
-
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]
