Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755481Ab1BXAys (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:54:48 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55436 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753854Ab1BXAyq (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:54:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:54:30 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: LSM , James Morris , Kees Cook , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, kernel list , "Eric W. Biederman" , Alexey Dobriyan , Michael Kerrisk , xemul@parallels.com, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] allow killing tasks in your own or child userns Message-Id: <20110223165430.863753f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20110224004818.GA11822@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20110217150224.GA26334@mail.hallyn.com> <20110217150325.GD26395@mail.hallyn.com> <20110218155921.440f1137.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110224004818.GA11822@mail.hallyn.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1550 Lines: 45 On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:48:18 +0000 "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org): > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:03:25 +0000 > > "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > > > > > /* > > > + * called with RCU read lock from check_kill_permission() > > > + */ > > > +static inline int kill_ok_by_cred(struct task_struct *t) > > > +{ > > > + const struct cred *cred = current_cred(); > > > + const struct cred *tcred = __task_cred(t); > > > + > > > + if (cred->user->user_ns == tcred->user->user_ns && > > > + (cred->euid == tcred->suid || > > > + cred->euid == tcred->uid || > > > + cred->uid == tcred->suid || > > > + cred->uid == tcred->uid)) > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + if (ns_capable(tcred->user->user_ns, CAP_KILL)) > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > The compiler will inline this for us. > > Is that simply true with everything (worth inlining) nowadays, or is > there a particular implicit hint to the compiler that'll make that > happen? We've basically stopped inlining things nowadays. gcc inlines aggressively and sometimes we have to use noinline to stop it. Also, modern gcc's like to ignore the inline directive anwyay, so we have to resort to __always_inline when we disagree. -- 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/