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
References: <20190320200702.GA27111@avx2>
In-Reply-To: <20190320200702.GA27111@avx2>
From:   Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:14:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOZuespjOTbaTDbgQLo=7PXTE-nYCLy7k=s+RJh_GpZ_5gwgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pidfd design
To:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:07 PM Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What would be your opinion to having a
> > /proc/<pid>/handle
> > file instead of having a dirfd.
>
> This is even worse than depending on PROC_FS. Just for the dependency
> pidfd code should be backed out immediately. Forget about /proc.

We already have pidfds, and we've had them since /proc was added ages
ago. Backing out procfs is a bold proposal.