[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0e946bcac12358841c9a99017da819b00794d9c.camel@bitron.ch>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:45:39 +0100
From: Jürg Billeter <j@...ron.ch>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
luto@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
serge@...lyn.com, jannh@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
oleg@...hat.com, cyphar@...har.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dancol@...gle.com,
timmurray@...gle.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall
On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 13:30 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Christian Brauner:
>
> > /* zombies */
> > Zombies can be signaled just as any other process. No special error will be
> > reported since a zombie state is an unreliable state (cf. [3]).
>
> I still disagree with this analysis. If I know that the target process
> is still alive, and it is not, this is a persistent error condition
> which can be reliably reported. Given that someone might send SIGKILL
> to the process behind my back, detecting this error condition could be
> useful.
As I understand it, kill() behaves the same way. I think it's good that
this new syscall keeps the behavior as close as possible to kill().
E.g., this would allow emulating kill() (or a higher level API
equivalent) on top of taskfds without subtle differences in behavior.
As the new syscall supports flags, we could consider introducing a flag
that changes the behavior in the zombie case. However, I think that
should be a separate discussion (after merge of the syscall) and the
default behavior makes sense as is.
Jürg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists