From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3394957314 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707493471; cv=none; b=iHWT1KjWXo0pU2mMTjixHDoRN6CyeaBY3jqS0LdfdMRIfaYHEZMbaKfCuam5QR+T2x/zMBEKbcI2SnzwUaHf1dnlBVuNiHMjLBHMvCQHcP+L2maBvHwUSJkc2jEzsCLRDTX4XqLFto4WEDpuvEauOnU/t7F68v+jJEABOt2BpqE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707493471; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8laP6uomvxanGYT7yrAFbIjiqPGzbWck4Bytm/WmMvk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=U1XMKWVWdLowxQEwLFPIfgv0ZBsfXQheuR7aBT++3Ir1a7DHRw3cNjyKRnpEZ2vkcw4y6a29RyuZFOg2Roivcb+OLEr3qhf7x5PwXzSuZvPGnNC0WeWfm7a4M0HIS1eYe1bXmA40arV2bYSTGOn2lobQFGtnJG4pXNfZvTBv5tQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=RLP1F/XC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="RLP1F/XC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707493469; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8laP6uomvxanGYT7yrAFbIjiqPGzbWck4Bytm/WmMvk=; b=RLP1F/XCOr5pWtTa3Yy+Qz4bcJB7uTD5q7J+q4KKIzcrs2tJhzZrV3muRUVTO8pHy9hnEi NZcyOFE7iBHZtA8LbB8ui1UEFJY2Viv98zd+vkTpec0pKaHWkbNm6WkNcihT55oVEfuVdL 9h0WEH5PKGLyJub2Re8RmPYuJNF7mpQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-584-tcF3PfSbMDufhk5k1eOCwA-1; Fri, 09 Feb 2024 10:44:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: tcF3PfSbMDufhk5k1eOCwA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEEB338130B4; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.45.226.84]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0EC362166B31; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:43:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:43:05 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Christian Brauner Cc: Andy Lutomirski , "Eric W. Biederman" , Tycho Andersen , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD_THREAD Message-ID: <20240209154305.GC3282@redhat.com> References: <20240209130620.GA8039@redhat.com> <20240209130650.GA8048@redhat.com> <20240209-stangen-feuerzeug-17c8662854c9@brauner> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240209-stangen-feuerzeug-17c8662854c9@brauner> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote: > > How do you feel about the following (untested...) addition? LGTM, but let me read this patch once again tomorrow, I have a headache today. > I've played with PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP as well but that code is > fairly new to me so I would need some more time. Heh, I was going to send another email to discuss this ;) Should be simple, but may be need some simple preparations. Especially if we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP. So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP? Oleg.