From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug  9 03:01:46 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77DACD4;
 Fri,  9 Aug 2013 03:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (gw.catspoiler.org [75.1.14.242])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A30752790;
 Fri,  9 Aug 2013 03:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
 by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id r7931XDc059355;
 Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <201308090301.r7931XDc059355@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Reliable process tracking
To: julian@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <5203FA18.20403@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 03:01:46 -0000

On  9 Aug, Julian Elischer wrote:

> I've been pondering the possibility of appending a universe (jail) 
> number to the
> UIDS, PIDS and various other things. (classes maybe?).
> 
> It wouldn't have to be everywhere, but ther eare a number of places 
> where comparisons would
> DTRT if they were comparing "my_jail+my_uid" with "his_jail+his_uid", 
> instead of just the UIDs.
> It would also help with the "multiple roots" problem, and might 
> simplify some of the current code.

If that's all you want, then why not just compare
	proc1->p_fd->fd_jdir to proc2->p_fd->fd_jdir
for the jail check?