Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181031025655.yz7lfhswk7igb3ty@yavin>
References: <20181029221037.87724-1-dancol@google.com> <20181030050012.u43lcvydy6nom3ul@yavin>
 <CAKOZuesKVic-5epRj8XcFNR_63SgvaPcbjDQuSLxNrEfS=O=Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181030204501.jnbe7dyqui47hd2x@yavin> <20181030214243.GB32621@google.com>
 <20181030222339.ud4wfp75tidowuo4@yavin> <20181030223343.GB105735@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <CAKOZueuBdY_b=CVk29pzn0NAt9sJtzr6yqx9Y00WCppCm1JFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPP7u0VQqDvFr=-52+Tmv_K=vT730wG7w9VQqJggsXTPFvaUBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20181031025655.yz7lfhswk7igb3ty@yavin>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:24:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQxWcQGZHrwhwsyu7GCk+WSap=tb0-asTsG8sTFmjE--g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement /proc/pid/kill
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:
> On 2018-10-31, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com> wrote:
>> > I think Aleksa's larger point is that it's useful to treat processes
>> > as other file-descriptor-named, poll-able, wait-able resources.
>> > Consistency is important. A process is just another system resource,
>> > and like any other system resource, you should be open to hold a file
>> > descriptor to it and do things to that process via that file
>> > descriptor. The precise form of this process-handle FD is up for
>> > debate. The existing /proc/$PID directory FD is a good candidate for a
>> > process handle FD, since it does almost all of what's needed. But
>> > regardless of what form a process handle FD takes, we need it. I don't
>> > see a case for continuing to treat processes in a non-unixy,
>> > non-file-descriptor-based manner.
>>
>> That's what I'm proposing in the API for which I'm gathering feedback.
>> I have presented parts of this in various discussions at LSS Europe last week
>> and will be at LPC.
>> We don't want to rush an API like this though. It was tried before in
>> other forms
>> and these proposals didn't make it.
>
> :+1: on a well thought-out and generic proposal. As we've discussed
> elsewhere, this is an issue that really would be great to (finally)
> solve.

Excited to see this and please count me in for discussions around this. thanks.

 - Joel