Long ago when the CLONE_THREAD support first went it someone
thought it would be wise to point /proc/self at /proc/<tgid>
instead of /proc/<pid>.
Given that /proc/<tgid> can return information about a very different
task (if enough things have been unshared) then our current process
/proc/<tgid> seems blatantly wrong. So far I have yet to think up
an example where the current behavior would be advantageous, and
I can see several places where it is seriously non-intuitive.
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.
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <[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
-
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/
