[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190725101626.GD4707@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:16:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
keescook@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tj@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] pidfd: add pidfd_wait()
On 07/24, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(pidfd_wait, int, pidfd, int __user *, stat_addr,
> + siginfo_t __user *, info, struct rusage __user *, ru,
> + unsigned int, states, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
Oh, I too think that P_PIDFD makes more sense.
and could you explain in the changelog why? I am not arguing and if
nothing else this is consistent with other pidfd features, but if you
are parent/debugger you can't hit the problem with pid-reuse, unless
you races with your sub-threads.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists