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;
Date:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:47:54 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, timmurray@google.com,
        surenb@google.com, christian.brauner@canonical.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, keescook@chromium.org, oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement /proc/pid/kill
Message-ID: <20181031214754.GA52047@google.com>
References: <20181029221037.87724-1-dancol@google.com>
 <20181031143744.77677-1-dancol@google.com>
 <20181031150548.GA103404@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20181031173353.uob5qikkhsb5digy@yavin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181031173353.uob5qikkhsb5digy@yavin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:33:53AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2018-10-31, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > I suggest to maintainers we take this in as an intermediate solution
> > since we don't have anything close to it and this is a real issue, and
> > the fix proposed is simple.
> 
> I would suggest we wait until after LPC to see what Christian's design
> is (given that, from what I've heard, it will help us solve more
> problems than just the kill(2) issue).
> 
> I am very skeptical of adding new procfs files as an "intermediate
> solution" (procfs is the most obvious example of an interface which is
> effectively written in stone). Especially if this would conflict with
> the idea Christian will propose -- as he said, there were proposals to
> do this in the past and they didn't get anywhere because of lack of
> discussion and brainstorming before posting patches.
> 

Fine with me, thanks.