Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@librato.com):

quoted

+/* setup checkpoint-specific parts of ctx */
+static int init_checkpoint_ctx(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, pid_t pid)
+{
+	struct task_struct *task;
+	struct nsproxy *nsproxy;
+	int ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * No need for explicit cleanup here, because if an error
+	 * occurs then ckpt_ctx_free() is eventually called.
+	 */
+
+	ctx->root_pid = pid;
+
+	/* root task */
+	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+	task = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
+	if (task)
+		get_task_struct(task);
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+	if (!task)
+		return -ESRCH;
+	else
+		ctx->root_task = task;
+
+	/* root nsproxy */
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	nsproxy = task_nsproxy(task);
+	if (nsproxy)
+		get_nsproxy(nsproxy);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (!nsproxy)
+		return -ESRCH;
+	else
+		ctx->root_nsproxy = nsproxy;
+
+	/* root freezer */
+	ctx->root_freezer = task;
+	geT_task_struct(task);
+
+	ret = may_checkpoint_task(ctx, task);
+	if (ret) {
+		ckpt_write_err(ctx, NULL);
+		put_task_struct(task);
+		put_task_struct(task);
+		put_nsproxy(nsproxy);

I don't think this is safe - the ckpt_ctx_free() will
free them a second time because you're not setting them
to NULL, right?

Yes. Fortunately this hole chunk is removed by the 3rd-next patch.
I'll make sure it's correct here too.

Thanks,

Oren.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>