From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidns: Limit kill -1 and cap_set_all Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:07:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1193681247.24087.206.camel@localhost> References: <1193673738.24087.176.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Emelyanov , "Sukadev Bhattiprolu [imap]" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:59 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > ier to read.) Also, can > > we think of any better name for this? It seems a bit funky that: > > > > pid_in_pid_ns(mypid, &init_pid_ns); > > > > would _ever_ return 0. > > It can't. > > > So, it isn't truly a test for belonging *in* a > > namespace, but having that namespace be the lowest level one. > > No. It is precisely a test for being in a namespace. > We first check ns->level to make certain it doesn't fall out > of the array, and then we check to see if the namespace we > are looking for is at that level. > > pid->numbers[0].ns == &init_pid_ns. Ahhh. I misparsed the: pid->numbers[ns->level].ns == ns; line to be checking at the pid level. You're right, it works fine as it stands. -- Dave