From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261997AbUCNWqa (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:46:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261999AbUCNWqa (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:46:30 -0500 Received: from alt.aurema.com ([203.217.18.57]:9607 "EHLO smtp.sw.oz.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261997AbUCNWq1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:46:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:46:18 +1100 From: Kingsley Cheung To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Trivial Patch] Bad tgid and tid lookup for /proc Message-ID: <20040315094618.A19791@aurema.com> Mail-Followup-To: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040209135110.H17768@aurema.com> <20040312005401.DD4032C733@lists.samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040312005401.DD4032C733@lists.samba.org>; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:09:09AM +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:09:09AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <20040209135110.H17768@aurema.com> you write: > > All, > > > > On 2.6.2, one can do the following, which is clearly wrong: > > > > gen2 02:49:45 ~: cat /proc/1/task/$$/stat > > 1669 (bash) S 1668 1669 1669 34816 1730 256 1480 6479 12 4 8 5 5 17 15 0 1 0 > 8065 3252224 451 4294967295 134512640 134955932 3221225104 3221222840 429496014 > 4 0 65536 3686404 1266761467 3222442959 0 0 17 0 0 0 > > gen2 02:50:44 ~: ls /proc/1/task > > 1 > > Patch was mangled, and IMHO wasn't exactly trivial. As I understand > it, you could access any task under /proc/xxx/task. Your patch seems to > make it that you can access any task under /proc/xxx/task if xxx is a > thread group leader. > > A little confused, > Rusty. Rusty, Andrew Morton, Peter Chubb, and a few others actually had a discussion and resolved some issues around that patch. So thanks to them I guess there's no need to be confused ;) Thanks for looking at it anyway. -- Kingsley