* Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
> We may be stuck with the current broken behavior for backwards
> compatibility reasons but lets try fixing our ancient bug for the
> 2.6.25 time frame and see if anyone screams.
to make sure i got you right - do you agree that this is a regression
and that we need the patch below included in 2.6.24?
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 34a1821..8502436 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -2050,22 +2050,22 @@ static int proc_self_readlink(struct dentry *dentry, char __user *buffer,
> int buflen)
> {
> struct pid_namespace *ns = dentry->d_sb->s_fs_info;
> - pid_t tgid = task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> + pid_t pid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> char tmp[PROC_NUMBUF];
> - if (!tgid)
> + if (!pid)
> return -ENOENT;
> - sprintf(tmp, "%d", tgid);
> + sprintf(tmp, "%d", pid);
> return vfs_readlink(dentry,buffer,buflen,tmp);
> }
>
> static void *proc_self_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
> {
> struct pid_namespace *ns = dentry->d_sb->s_fs_info;
> - pid_t tgid = task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> + pid_t pid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> char tmp[PROC_NUMBUF];
> - if (!tgid)
> + if (!pid)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> - sprintf(tmp, "%d", task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns));
> + sprintf(tmp, "%d", pid);
> return ERR_PTR(vfs_follow_link(nd,tmp));
> }
>
> --
> 1.5.3.rc6.17.g1911
Ingo
-
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]
