[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuesXN1qBYKvkTt2StX-07vM0msGvmgqiRvh-+=aaTX4A8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:21:31 -0800
From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.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>,
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>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Christian Brauner
<christian@...uner.io> wrote:
>> That is, I'm proposing an API that looks like this:
>>
>> int process_kill(int procfs_dfd, int signo, const union sigval value)
>
> I've started a second tree with process_signal(int procpid_dfd, int sig)
Thanks.
> instead of an ioctl(). Why do you want sigval too?
API completeness. The sigqueue interface is a superset of kill, and I
don't want process_kill to do less than any PID-based kill. Maybe
taking a siginfo_t, like rt_sigqueueinfo does, would be even better in
that respect, come to think of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists