On 09/15, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(getvpid, pid_t, pid, pid_t, source, pid_t, target)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
> + struct pid_namespace *current_ns = task_active_pid_ns(current);
> + struct pid_namespace *source_ns = current_ns, *target_ns = current_ns;
> + struct pid *task_pid;
> + pid_t result = -ESRCH;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (source)
> + source_ns = ns_of_pid(find_pid_ns(source, current_ns));
> + if (target)
> + target_ns = ns_of_pid(find_pid_ns(target, current_ns));
> + if (source_ns && target_ns) {
> + task_pid = find_pid_ns(pid, source_ns);
> + if (task_pid)
> + result = pid_nr_ns(task_pid, target_ns);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return result;
> +#else
> + return pid;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PID_NS */
> +}
Not sure we actually want ifdef(CONFIG_PID_NS). If this is just optimization
I'd suggest to simply add
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PID_NS))
return pid;
at the start.
But. Either way this unconditional "return pid" doesn't look right imho.
I think we should return -ESRCH if this pid number is not valid to ensure
we have the same semantics with-or-without CONFIG_PID_NS. So it seems that
you should remove this ifdef, this will also ensure that we return -ESRCH
if (say) source != 0 and find_pid_ns(source) fails.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
