[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130827174916.GA802@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:49:16 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] proc: make /proc/self point to thread
On 08/27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > /proc/self points to /proc/<tgid>, not to /proc/<tid>, and thus
> > "self" actually means "group leader".
> >
> > Change fs/proc/self.c to print the caller's tid, this is probably
> > what the users actually expect.
>
> Yeah, thinking more about this, this can't work. I think you'd need to
> use "/proc/<tgid>/task/<tid>" wouldn't you?
Why? To me /proc/self == /proc/$((sys_gettid)) looks more natural.
Say, /proc/self/task... But this is subjective.
Not to mention, that would be much more visible change.
> Anyway, does not not sound worth it. Your previous simple patch is
> probably the right thing to do.
OK, lets forget it.
Although to be honest, I was seduced by "Worth testing". I mean I am
just curious, who can suffer from this change? Nevermind, please
ignore.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists