[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUb8MSPPBLLz5Md9Fzaq3Kd9HtG8R5JFwWuy21jOuzbUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:15:11 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:07 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote:
> Next, I want to merge my exithand proposal, or something like it. It's
> likewise a simple change that, in a minimal way, addresses a
> longstanding API deficiency. I'm very strongly against the
> POLLERR-on-directory variant of the idea.
Can you explain why you don't like POLLERR-on-a-directory? I'm not
saying that POLLERR-on-a-directory is fantastic, but I'd like to
understand what your objection is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists