On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:56PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> >> 
> >> +static struct net *get_proc_task_net(struct inode *dir)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct task_struct *task;
> >> +	struct nsproxy *ns;
> >> +	struct net *net = NULL;
> >> +
> >> +	rcu_read_lock();
> >> +	task = get_proc_task(dir);
> >
> > This implies a get_task_struct(), as get_proc_task() invokes get_proc_task()
> > which invokes get_pid_task() which invokes get_task_struct().
> >
> > I don't see the corresponding put_task_struct() -- what am I missing here?
> 
> You aren't.  However we can easily make this:
> 	task = pid_task(proc_pid(dir), PIDTYPE_PID);
> And we won't need to increment the count on the task_struct.

That looks like it should do the trick!  And the net_get() below
will allow you to safely export the "net" pointer out of an RCU
read-side critical section, so with that change looks good to me!

						Thanx, Paul

quoted text
> Good catch.
> 
> >> +	if (task != NULL) {
> >> +		ns = task_nsproxy(task);
> >> +		if (ns != NULL)
> >> +			net = get_net(ns->net_ns);
> >> +	}
> >> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >> +
> >> +	return net;
> >> +}
> >> +
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/