From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v7) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:29:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20090805132948.GA31272@us.ibm.com> References: <1249331463-11887-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1249331463-11887-6-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090804223141.GA14254@us.ibm.com> <8763d3dwmx.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8763d3dwmx.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Smith Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, Alexey Dobriyan , netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dan Smith (danms@us.ibm.com): > SH> why only free iov_base if ret!=0? > > Because I was diagnosing a crash that only seemed to happen when I > free()'d the buffer after it was used by sendmsg() and I forgot to > remove this :( > > >> + a->sk_peercred.pid = task_tgid_vnr(current); > >> + a->sk_peercred.uid = ctx->realcred->uid; > > SH> I don't know how much it matters, but of course root could be > SH> restarting a set of tasks owned by several non-root uids, and the > SH> peercred.uid's might need to be something other than > ctx-> realcred->uid. Or not? > > Oh, so you're suggesting I use ctx->ecred instead? I didn't actually > notice the double declaration in the ckpt_ctx, but I guess that would > be better. No, I'm suggesting that the checkpointed application might have had tasks owned by uids 0, 3, 55, and 1001, and a.peercred.uid might have been 1001, right? current, ctx->realcred->uid, and ctx->ecred might all be different uids. I think you just need to checkpoint the uid (eventually an objref to a checkpointed user struct so we can also catch the user namespace). -serge