On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/25, Gargi Sharma wrote: >> >> void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns) >> { >> - int nr; >> + int nr = 2; >> int rc; >> struct task_struct *task, *me = current; >> int init_pids = thread_group_leader(me) ? 1 : 2; >> + struct pid *pid; >> >> /* Don't allow any more processes into the pid namespace */ >> disable_pid_allocation(pid_ns); >> @@ -240,8 +230,8 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns) >> * >> */ >> read_lock(&tasklist_lock); >> - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, 1); >> - while (nr > 0) { >> + pid = idr_get_next(&pid_ns->idr, &nr); >> + while (pid) { >> rcu_read_lock(); >> >> task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID); >> @@ -250,7 +240,8 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns) >> >> rcu_read_unlock(); >> >> - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, nr); >> + nr++; >> + pid = idr_get_next(&pid_ns->idr, &nr); >> } >> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > Then you should probably rewrite this code using > idr_for_each_entry_continue() ? Yes, I missed this macro in the idr library. > > And why do you need find_vpid(nr) if you already have "pid" ?
Thanks for the feedback! Yes, it is not needed anymore and can be removed. Best, Gargi > > Oleg. >
