On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 08:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Ian Kent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 21:19 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Ian Kent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 16:01 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > >> > void autofs4_dentry_release(struct dentry *); > > > > > >> > extern void autofs4_kill_sb(struct super_block *); > > > > > >> > diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > > > > > >> > index 9857543..4a9ad9b 100644 > > > > > >> > --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > > > > > >> > +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c > > > > > >> > @@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ static void autofs4_notify_daemon(struct > > > > > >> > packet->ino = wq->ino; > > > > > >> > packet->uid = wq->uid; > > > > > >> > packet->gid = wq->gid; > > > > > >> > - packet->pid = wq->pid; > > > > > >> > - packet->tgid = wq->tgid; > > > > > >> > + packet->pid = pid_nr(wq->pid); > > > > > >> > + packet->tgid = pid_nr(wq->tgid); > > > > > >> > break; > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm assuming we build the packet in the process context of the > > > > > >> daemon we are sending it to. If not we have a problem here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes this is data being sent to a userspace daemon (Ian pls correct > > > > > > me if > > > > > > I'm wrong) so the pid_nr is the only thing we can send. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. The question is are we in the user space daemon's process > > > > > when > > > > > we generate the pid_nr. Or do we stuff this in some kind of socket, > > > > > and the socket switch locations of the packet. > > > > > > > > The context here is the automount daemon only for expire runs. > > > > > > > > Mount request packets are triggered by user processes walking over an > > > > autofs mount point directory. So "current" in this case isn't the autofs > > > > daemon. > > > > > > > > Requests are sent via a pipe to the daemon. > > > > > > So is the pid used for anything other than debugging? > > > > > > In any case, here is a replacement patch which sends the pid number > > > in the pid_namespace of the process which did the autofs4 mount. > > > > > > Still not sure whether that is actually what makes sense... > > > > > > From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [PATCH] autofs: prevent pid wraparound in waitqs > > > > > > Instead of storing pid numbers for waitqs, store references > > > to struct pids. Also store a reference to the mounter's pid > > > namespace in the autofs4 sb info so that pid numbers for > > > mount miss and expiry msgs can send the pid# in the mounter's > > > pidns. > > > > I think this amounts to what I suggested in my previous replies. > > Hopefully my comments are enough to clear up any questions on > > correctness of this approach. > > > > Sorry to be a pain but I'm having a little trouble reviewing the patch > > because I'm not clear on where the code to handle the automount process > > group (so called oz_pgrp), from the first patch, fits in with this. > > It also has pidspace infrastructure code in it, so I think we will just > hold off on this until we have that infrastructure merged into the > pidspace code and into -mm. Then we can send you a single, more concise > patch. > > > Is this patch in addition to the original? > > Yes. > > > If so are the references to pid_nr still OK? > > I think so, because AIUI the rest are all executed in a context where > current is both the actor and recipient.
Not sure about that but lets not worry about it until we have a full patch to look at. > Thanks for your help. My pleasure. Ian - 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/
