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;
Cc:     mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: For review: pidfd_open(2) manual page
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <90399dee-53d8-a82c-3871-9ec8f94601ce@gmail.com>
 <87tv939td6.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <63566f1f-667d-50ca-ae85-784924d09af4@gmail.com>
 <874l12924w.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d3f5191a-3026-6ce1-5cf2-6be8e0f4a989@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 22:57:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <874l12924w.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Florian,

On 9/23/19 10:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Michael Kerrisk:
> 
>>>>        static
>>>>        int pidfd_open(pid_t pid, unsigned int flags)
>>>>        {
>>>>            return syscall(__NR_pidfd_open, pid, flags);
>>>>        }
>>>
>>> Please call this function something else (not pidfd_open), so that the
>>> example continues to work if glibc provides the system call wrapper.
>>
>> I figured that if the syscall does get added to glibc, then I would
>> modify the example. In the meantime, this does seem the most natural
>> way of doing things, since the example then uses the real syscall
>> name as it would be used if there were a wrapper function.
> 
> The problem is that programs do this as well, so they fail to build
> once they are built on a newer glibc version.

But isn't such a failure a good thing? I mean: it encourages
people to rid their programs of uses of syscall(2).

>> But, this leads to the question: what do you think the likelihood
>> is that this system call will land in glibc?
> 
> Quite likely.  It's easy enough to document, there are no P&C issues,
> and it doesn't need any new types.

Okay.

> pidfd_send_signal is slightly more difficult because we probably need
> to add rt_sigqueueinfo first, for consistency.

Okay. I see that's a little more problematic.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/