[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240127210634.GE13787@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:10:12 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group
leaders
On 01/27, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 08:31:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On the second thought I am starting to understand your concern...
> >
> > Indeed, in this case -EBADF is technically correct but it can confuse
> > the user which doesn't or can't know that this task/thread is exiting,
> > because EBADF looks as if the "int fd" argument was wrong.
> >
> > Sorry I missed your point before.
>
> No worries. I realized it's not so hard to fix with your new
> xxx_exited() helper from the PIDFD_THREAD patch, so maybe worth
> cleaning up after all?
OK, lets discuss this later.
I'll (hopefully) send v2 on top of
pidfd: cleanup the usage of __pidfd_prepare's flags
pidfd: don't do_notify_pidfd() if !thread_group_empty()
on Monday, will be busy tomorrow (family duties ;)
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists