* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:

quoted text
> We may be stuck with the current broken behavior for backwards 
> compatibility reasons but lets try fixing our ancient bug for the 
> 2.6.25 time frame and see if anyone screams.

to make sure i got you right - do you agree that this is a regression 
and that we need the patch below included in 2.6.24?

quoted text
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

quoted text
> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c |   12 ++++++------
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 34a1821..8502436 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -2050,22 +2050,22 @@ static int proc_self_readlink(struct dentry *dentry, char __user *buffer,
>  			      int buflen)
>  {
>  	struct pid_namespace *ns = dentry->d_sb->s_fs_info;
> -	pid_t tgid = task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> +	pid_t pid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, ns);
>  	char tmp[PROC_NUMBUF];
> -	if (!tgid)
> +	if (!pid)
>  		return -ENOENT;
> -	sprintf(tmp, "%d", tgid);
> +	sprintf(tmp, "%d", pid);
>  	return vfs_readlink(dentry,buffer,buflen,tmp);
>  }
>  
>  static void *proc_self_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
>  {
>  	struct pid_namespace *ns = dentry->d_sb->s_fs_info;
> -	pid_t tgid = task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns);
> +	pid_t pid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, ns);
>  	char tmp[PROC_NUMBUF];
> -	if (!tgid)
> +	if (!pid)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> -	sprintf(tmp, "%d", task_tgid_nr_ns(current, ns));
> +	sprintf(tmp, "%d", pid);
>  	return ERR_PTR(vfs_follow_link(nd,tmp));
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 1.5.3.rc6.17.g1911

	Ingo
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/