[Devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Replace pid_t in autofs with struct pid reference

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:

>> 
>> >> Index: 2.6.20/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> >> ===================================================================
>> >> --- 2.6.20.orig/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> >> +++ 2.6.20/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>> >> @@ -292,8 +292,8 @@ int autofs4_wait(struct autofs_sb_info *
>> >>  		wq->ino = autofs4_get_ino(sbi);
>> >>  		wq->uid = current->uid;
>> >>  		wq->gid = current->gid;
>> >> -		wq->pid = current->pid;
>> >> -		wq->tgid = current->tgid;
>> >> +		wq->pid = pid_nr(task_pid(current));
>> >> +		wq->tgid = pid_nr(task_tgid(current));
>> >>  		wq->status = -EINTR; /* Status return if interrupted */
>> >>  		atomic_set(&wq->wait_ctr, 2);
>> >>  		mutex_unlock(&sbi->wq_mutex);
>> 
>> I have a concern with this bit as I my quick review said the wait queue
>> persists, and if so we should be cache the struct pid pointer, not the
>> pid_t value.  Heck the whol pid_nr(task_xxx(current)) idiom I find very
>> suspicious.
>
> Based just on what I see right here I agree it seems like we would want
> to store a ref to the pid, not store the pid_nr(pid) output, so in this
> context it is suspicious.

So that far we are in agreement.

> OTOH if you're saying that using pid_nr(task_pid(current)) anywhere
> should always be 'wrong', then please explain why, as I think we have a
> disagreement on the meanings of the structs involved.  In other words,
> at some point I expect the only way to get a "pid number" out of a task
> would be using this exact idiom, "pid_nr(task_pid(current))".

Dealing with the current process is very common, and
"pid_nr(task_pid(current)" is very long winded.  Therefore I think it
makes sense to have a specialized helper for that case.

I don't think "current->pid" and "current->tgid" are necessarily
wrong.

For "process_session(current)", and "process_group(current)" I think
they are fine but we might optimize them to something like:
"current_session()" and "current_group()".

The important part is that we have clearly detectable idioms for
finding the pid values.  So we can find the users and audit the code.
Having a little more change so that the problem cases don't compile
when they comes from a patch that hasn't caught up yet with the changes
is also useful.

The only advantage I see in making everything go through something
like: pid_nr(task_pid(current)) is that we don't have the problem of
storing the pid value twice.  However if we have short hand helper
functions for that case it will still work and we won't be horribly
wordy.  

Further I don't know how expensive pid_nr is going to be, I don't
think it will be very expensive.  But I still think it may be
reasonable to cache the answers for the current process on the
task_struct.  Fewer cache lines and all of that jazz.

Mostly I just think pid_nr(task_pid(xxx)) looks ugly is rarely needed
and is frequently associated with a bad conversion.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers