Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall

Christian Brauner
2018-12-06T23:17:45Z

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:39:48PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:46:53PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> writes:
> >
> > >> Your intention is to add the thread case to support pthreads once the
> > >> process case is sorted out. So this is something that needs to be made
> > >> clear. Did I miss how you plan to handle threads?
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe you missed it in the commit message [2] which is based on a
> > > discussion with Andy [3] and Arnd [4]:
> >
> > Looking at your references I haven't missed it. You are not deciding
> > anything as of yet to keep it simple. Except you are returning
> > EOPNOTSUPP. You are very much intending to do something.
>
> That was clear all along and was pointed at every occassion in the
> threads. I even went through the hazzle to give you all of the
> references when there's lore.kernel.org.
>
> >
> > Decide. Do you use the flags parameter or is the width of the
> > target depending on the flags.

Ok, let's try to be constructive. I understand the general concern for
the future so let's put a contract into the commit message stating that
the width of the target aka *what is signaled* will be based on a flag
parameter if we ever extend it:

taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PGID);
taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_TID);

with the current default being

taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PID);

This seems to me the cleanest solution as we only use one type of file
descriptor. Can everyone be on board with this? If so I'm going to send
out a new version of the patch.

Christian