From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroups: not to iterate other namespace process inside container Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:37:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20081209233723.GA11925@us.ibm.com> References: <493CC423.5060601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1228753106.9737.7.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1228753106.9737.7.camel@nimitz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Balbir List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen [dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org] wrote: | I could have sworn we had some function like | task_is_in_current_active_pid_ns(), but I looked and couldn't find it. It was in one of the many signals patchsets we tried but none of them got accepted. We do have a variant out for review, ns_of_pid() that could be used, this patch task_pid_vnr() should be fine. | Maybe we should add one instead of open-coding this everywhere. If there are lot of users, we should define the wrapper for 'task_pid_vnr() > 0' but there is no other user at present (kill_something_info() checks for > 1).