lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 12:17:45AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:39:48PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:46:53PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> writes:
> > >
> > > >> Your intention is to add the thread case to support pthreads once the
> > > >> process case is sorted out. So this is something that needs to be made
> > > >> clear. Did I miss how you plan to handle threads?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, maybe you missed it in the commit message [2] which is based on a
> > > > discussion with Andy [3] and Arnd [4]:
> > >
> > > Looking at your references I haven't missed it. You are not deciding
> > > anything as of yet to keep it simple. Except you are returning
> > > EOPNOTSUPP. You are very much intending to do something.
> >
> > That was clear all along and was pointed at every occassion in the
> > threads. I even went through the hazzle to give you all of the
> > references when there's lore.kernel.org.
> >
> > >
> > > Decide. Do you use the flags parameter or is the width of the
> > > target depending on the flags.
>
> Ok, let's try to be constructive. I understand the general concern for
> the future so let's put a contract into the commit message stating that
> the width of the target aka *what is signaled* will be based on a flag
> parameter if we ever extend it:
>
> taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PGID);
> taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_TID);
>
> with the current default being
>
> taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PID);
>
> This seems to me the cleanest solution as we only use one type of file
> descriptor. Can everyone be on board with this? If so I'm going to send
> out a new version of the patch.
>
> Christian

I'm on board with this, but I think you need to also clarify what exactly
the fd stands for. I think that (a) userspace should not have to care
about the struct pid implementation, and so (b) the procfd should stand
for all the pids. So when taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PGID)
becomes implemented, then open(/proc/5) will pin all three pids, as will
open(/proc/5/task/6).

-serge

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-07 01:32    [W:0.048 / U:4.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site