[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110706180831.GA15379@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:08:32 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, ebiederm@...ssion.com, mingo@...e.hu,
rdunlap@...otime.net, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] shm: handle separate PID
namespaces case
On 07/06, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
> > > +void exit_shm(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ipc_namespace *ns = task->nsproxy->ipc_ns;
> > > +
> > > + /* Destroy all already created segments, but not mapped yet */
> > > + down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> > > + if (&shm_ids(ns).in_use)
> > > + idr_for_each(&shm_ids(ns).ipcs_idr, &shm_try_destroy_current, ns);
> > > + up_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> >
> > Having exit_shm() call shm_destroy_orphaned(task->nsproxy->ipc_ns) seems
> > more future-proof?
>
> shm_destroy_orphaned() doesn't clear ->shm_creator. Logically it sovles
> another problem - it is used ONLY to be consistent while changing
> kernel.shm_rmid_forced (having orphans with shm_rmid_forced=1 is not
> honest).
Yes, there are different things.
Cough. I stil think exit_shm() should check .in_use != 0 lockless.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
