Re: [PATCH RESEND v9 3/8] proc: move hide_pid, pid_gid from pid_namespace to proc_fs_info

[Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:00:15PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:46 PM Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +/* definitions for hide_pid field */
> > > +enum {
> > > +       HIDEPID_OFF       = 0,
> > > +       HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS = 1,
> > > +       HIDEPID_INVISIBLE = 2,
> > > +};
> > 
> > Should this enum be named...
> > 
> > >  struct proc_fs_info {
> > >         struct pid_namespace *pid_ns;
> > >         struct dentry *proc_self;        /* For /proc/self */
> > >         struct dentry *proc_thread_self; /* For /proc/thread-self */
> > > +       kgid_t pid_gid;
> > > +       int hide_pid;
> > >  };
> > 
> > .. and then used here instead of "int"?
> > 
> > Same goes for 'struct proc_fs_context' too, for that matter?
> > 
> > And maybe in the function declarations and definitions too? In things
> > like 'has_pid_permissions()' (the series adds some other cases later,
> > like hidepid2str() etc)
> > 
> > Yeah, enums and ints are kind of interchangeable in C, but even if it
> > wouldn't give us any more typechecking (except perhaps with sparse if
> > you mark it so), it would be documenting the use.
> > 
> > Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Anyway, I continue to think the series looks fine, bnut would love to
> > see it in -next and perhaps comments from Al and Alexey Dobriyan..
> 
> Patches are OK, except the part where "pid" is named "pidfs" and
> the suffix doesn't convey any information.

I will fix this in the final version.

> 	mount -t proc -o subset=pid,sysctl,misc

I have not yet figured out how to implement this. I mean subset=meminfo,misc.

-- 
Rgrds, legion