From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7][v2] Define clone_with_pids syscall
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:19:22 -0700
Message-ID: <20090529211922.GC12597@us.ibm.com>
References: <4A1EA73F.1080802@cs.columbia.edu>
	<20090528173019.GB26183@us.ibm.com>
	<4A1F228C.2020201@cs.columbia.edu>
	<20090529030558.GA2548@us.ibm.com>
	<4A1F72A1.4070103@cs.columbia.edu>
	<20090529054645.GA3344@us.ibm.com>
	<4A1F78AF.6030404@cs.columbia.edu>
	<20090529170616.GA12597@us.ibm.com>
	<20090529193416.GB12597@us.ibm.com>
	<4A203F2E.1060807@cs.columbia.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A203F2E.1060807-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Oren Laadan <orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Containers <containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>, "David C. Hansen" <haveblue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org

Oren Laadan [orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org] wrote:
| 
| 
| Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| > Sukadev Bhattiprolu [sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org] wrote:
| > | Oren Laadan [orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org] wrote:
| > 
| > I am not sure what the semantics should be for this case:
| > 
| > 	- checkpoint a process that is in level-3 pid namespace
| > 	- restart in a level-2 or level-1 pid namespace
| > 
| 
| Meaning: a container root was at level-3, so tasks in the container
| were level-3 through level-(3+N), where N is the in-container depth
| so to speak. Then it was restarted such that the base became level-2
| or level-1.
| 
| I think we already covered this.
| 

Sorry, I meant level3 not 'level minus 3' :-) Restating, suppose
init_pid_ns is L0, and L3 is a pid namespace 3 levels deep (i.e the
process has 4 pids at checkpoint time). When restarting, if the
process only needs 2 pids bc it is L1, current behavior is to return
-EINVAL. 

I have this check in copy_target_pids():

+       if (num_pids < 0 || num_pids > nesting)
+               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

Is it ok to return -EINVAL when num_pids > nesting ?