[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zbe2x+M8tDBotSNZ@tycho.pizza>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:31:35 -0700
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for pidfd_open()
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 02:41:11PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:23:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -2051,7 +2051,8 @@ bool do_notify_parent(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!tsk->ptrace &&
> > (tsk->group_leader != tsk || !thread_group_empty(tsk)));
> > /*
> > - * tsk is a group leader and has no threads, wake up the pidfd waiters.
> > + * tsk is a group leader and has no threads, wake up the !PIDFD_THREAD
> > + * waiters.
> > */
> > if (thread_group_empty(tsk))
> > do_notify_pidfd(tsk);
> > @@ -3926,6 +3927,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
> > prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo);
> > }
> >
> > + /* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */
>
> So I've been thinking about this at the end of last week. Do we need to
> give userspace a way to send a thread-group wide signal even when a
> PIDFD_THREAD pidfd is passed? Or should we just not worry about this
> right now and wait until someone needs this?
I don't need it currently, but it would have been handy for some of
the tests I wrote.
Should I fix those up and send them too on top of Oleg's v2?
Tycho
Powered by blists - more mailing lists