Nathan Lynch [off-list ref] writes:
Hi Eric,
A few comments on your patch set.
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:24 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/fs/proc/inode.c b/fs/proc/inode.c
index d15aa1b..74b48cf 100644
--- a/fs/proc/inode.c
+++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static void proc_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
struct proc_dir_entry *de;
struct ctl_table_header *head;
+ const struct proc_ns_operations *ns_ops;
truncate_inode_pages(&inode->i_data, 0);
end_writeback(inode);@@ -44,6 +45,10 @@ static void proc_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
rcu_assign_pointer(PROC_I(inode)->sysctl, NULL);
sysctl_head_put(head);
}
+ /* Release any associated namespace */
+ ns_ops = PROC_I(inode)->ns_ops;
+ if (ns_ops && ns_ops->put)
+ ns_ops->put(PROC_I(inode)->ns);
Is it ever valid for ns_ops->put to be null? If not, I suggest removing
the check.
quoted
diff --git a/fs/proc/namespaces.c b/fs/proc/namespaces.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6ae9f07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/fs/proc/namespaces.c
...
quoted
+static struct dentry *proc_ns_dir_lookup(struct inode *dir,
+ struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
+{
+ struct dentry *error;
+ struct task_struct *task = get_proc_task(dir);
+ const struct proc_ns_operations **entry, **last;
+ unsigned int len = dentry->d_name.len;
+
+ error = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
+
+ if (!task)
+ goto out_no_task;
+
+ error = ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
+ if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ))
+ goto out;
+
+ last = &ns_entries[ARRAY_SIZE(ns_entries) - 1];
+ for (entry = ns_entries; entry <= last; entry++) {
+ if (strlen((*entry)->name) != len)
+ continue;
+ if (!memcmp(dentry->d_name.name, (*entry)->name, len))
+ break;
+ }
+ if (entry > last)
+ goto out;
This returns EPERM when it should return ENOENT?
Good catch.
And fixed now.
quoted
union proc_op {
int (*proc_get_link)(struct inode *, struct path *);
int (*proc_read)(struct task_struct *task, char *page);@@ -268,6 +284,8 @@ struct proc_inode {
struct proc_dir_entry *pde;
struct ctl_table_header *sysctl;
struct ctl_table *sysctl_entry;
+ void *ns;
+ const struct proc_ns_operations *ns_ops;
struct inode vfs_inode;
};
Not that I have any better ideas, but it seems a bit undesirable to
increase the size of proc_inode for this one purpose.
Of the options I could think of this was the cleanest, and proc_inode
is just a caching data structure which means that the effect should be
comparatively minimal.
That said I won't oppose a change at some point to reduce the
proc_inode, there are a lot of fields that are not used for most proc
entries.
Eric