From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756069AbcHCRs7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:48:59 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:56068 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751763AbcHCRs5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:48:57 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Pavel Emelyanov , Jeff Layton , Andrey Vagin , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk References: <1470148943-21835-1-git-send-email-kernel@kyup.com> <1470209710-30022-1-git-send-email-kernel@kyup.com> <1470232012.18285.4.camel@poochiereds.net> <57A1FCE5.3040206@kyup.com> <57A205BE.3070202@virtuozzo.com> <57A20702.3040805@kyup.com> <20160803150631.GA3789@fieldses.org> <57A2097C.7060206@kyup.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:35:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <57A2097C.7060206@kyup.com> (Nikolay Borisov's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:10:52 +0300") Message-ID: <8760rhiwlw.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1bV0He-0005n9-Ix;;;mid=<8760rhiwlw.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.204.119;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX190IBj9qYn41eoUK7rUZ1JSM8v+ngjEe6o= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.204.119 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4729] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Nikolay Borisov X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 547 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.45 (0.1%), signal_user_changed: 5 (0.9%), b_tie_ro: 3.7 (0.7%), parse: 0.94 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 13 (2.4%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.91 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 5 (1.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.24 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 1.04 (0.2%), tests_pri_-400: 20 (3.6%), check_bayes: 19 (3.4%), b_tokenize: 5 (1.0%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.0%), b_comp_prob: 1.97 (0.4%), b_tok_touch_all: 3.7 (0.7%), b_finish: 0.68 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 277 (50.6%), check_dkim_signature: 0.71 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 89 (16.2%), tests_pri_500: 219 (40.1%), poll_dns_idle: 211 (38.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locks: Filter /proc/locks output on proc pid ns X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nikolay Borisov writes: > On 08/03/2016 06:06 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> Digging around... Oh, I see, there's an optional 'lock:..' line in >> /proc/[pid]/fdinfo/[pid] file, is that what you're looking at? I'd >> forgotten. Yeah, maybe that would make more sense long term. > > Yep, that's the one but this requires the userspace to be updated to use > that interface. In the meantime we could do away with some maintenance > of the existing /proc/locks :) I am tempted to say let's not change /proc/locks at all, but if locks really are in a pid namespace than I do think it makes sense to filter them in /proc just so there is not excessive visiblity outside of the pid namespace. Excessive visibility is a problem on it's own. Eric