lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 3/4] signal: support CLONE_PIDFD with pidfd_send_signal
From
On April 17, 2019 5:20:55 PM GMT+02:00, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 04/17, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:01:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > On 04/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > @@ -3581,12 +3588,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int,
>pidfd, int, sig,
>> > > if (flags)
>> > > return -EINVAL;
>> > >
>> > > - f = fdget_raw(pidfd);
>> > > + f = fdget(pidfd);
>> >
>> > could you explain this change?
>> >
>> > I am just curious, I don't understand why should we disallow O_PATH
>and how
>> > this connects to this patch.
>>
>> Sending a signal through a pidfd is considered to be on a par with a
>> "write" to that pidfd.
>
>OK, but how this connects to "support pidfds" ?
>
>> Additionally, we use the fops associated with the fd to detect
>whether
>> it is actually a pidfd or not. This is not possible with O_PATH since
>> f_ops will be set to dummy fops.
>
>indeed... I didn't know this, thanks!
>
>But this means that pidfd_send_signal() will return -EBADF with or
>without
>this change; pidfd_to_pid() will return -EBADF even if fdget_raw()
>suceeds,
>right?
>
>To clarify, I am not arguing. I am trying to understand why exactly do
>we
>need this s/fdget_raw/fdget/ change and, why it doesn't come as a
>separate
>patch. Can you add a note into the changelog?

I should split this into a separate patch indeed.
Let me do that for v2.

Christian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-17 19:41    [W:0.063 / U:22.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site