Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:52:50 +0200 | From | Christian Brauner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] samples: make pidfd-metadata fail gracefully on older kernels |
| |
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 02:32:30PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:13:39AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > [...] > > Out of curiosity: what makes the new flag different than say > > CLONE_NEWCGROUP or any new clone flag that got introduced? > > CLONE_NEWCGROUP too would not be detectable apart from the method I gave > > you above; same for other clone flags. Why are you so keen on being able > > to detect this flag when other flags didn't seem to matter that much. > > I wasn't following uapi changes closely enough those days. ;)
(Seriously, you had one job. :) I'm joking of course.)
What you want makes sense to me overall. This way userspace can decide easier whether to manage a process through a pidfd or needs to fallback to a pid.
Christian
| |