On 08/26, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:28:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Or 3/12.
>
> That is a cleanup to make clear what parts are actually pid-related and
> what isn't.
You know, I decided to send another email about this patch. This cleanup
doesn't look even correct.
> > OK, I agree sys_getppid() in audit_log_task_info() looks
> > strange at least. Just fix it using the helpers we already have and
> > add the new helpers later. Or send the patch(es) which adds the new
> > helpers first.
>
> Patch 04/12 is that helper. It is used in only two places in audit
I see what 3/4 do. But I am not sure we need this. At least in this
series.
OK, why do we need 3 new helper? audit needs only one,
task_ppid_nr_init_ns(). And who else needs this task_ppid* stuff?
> once in apparmor),
OK, apparmor. So perhaps a single new helper in sched.c makes sense,
I dunno. But see above.
> > Or task_pid_nr_init_ns()... For what? We already have task_pid_nr().
> > Use the helper we already have, or introduce the new one first and
> > change the current users of task_pid_nr().
>
> If task_struct::pid is definitely not going away, then that whole part
> is moot and we'll just use task_pid_nr() as is.
Can't understand. We already have task_tgid_nr(). This helper can be
changed to avoid ->tgig. Why task_ppid_nr_init_ns() can't use the
helper we already have?
But let me repeat. I am not maintainer and I do not really care.
You should convince Eric, I am not going to argue.
Btw. audit looks unmaintained... if you are going to take care of
this code, perhaps you can look at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137589907108485
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137590271809664
?
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/
