Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:51:54 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
cc:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: introduce process_reap system call
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpFt55Dw1uW3S6_AincNfPaAtwdi6iXYVvFr7x3fvt4uzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <q2s48op3-n660-p8r4-op50-po43r2249r24@vanv.qr>
References: <20210623192822.3072029-1-surenb@google.com> <87sg0qa22l.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CAJuCfpEWpvw+gW+NvBPOdGqUOEyucFoT8gdC2uk18dMBQFbhqw@mail.gmail.com> <87wnq1z7kl.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <CAJuCfpFt55Dw1uW3S6_AincNfPaAtwdi6iXYVvFr7x3fvt4uzw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.24 (LSU 510 2020-10-10)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thursday 2021-07-08 08:05, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> That explains very clearly the requirement, but it raises the question
>> why this isn't an si_code flag for rt_sigqueueinfo, reusing the existing
>> system call.
>
>I think you are suggesting to use sigqueue() to deliver the signal and
>perform the reaping when a special value accompanies it. This would be
>somewhat similar to my early suggestion to use a flag in
>pidfd_send_signal() (see:
>https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1060407) to implement memory
>reaping which has another advantage of operation on PIDFDs instead of
>PIDs which can be recycled.
>kill()/pidfd_send_signal()/sigqueue() are supposed to deliver the
>signal and return without blocking. Changing that behavior was
>considered unacceptable in these discussions.

The way I understood the request is that a userspace program (or perhaps two,
if so desired) should issue _two_ calls, one to deliver the signal,
one to perform the reap portion:

	uinfo.si_code = SI_QUEUE;
	sigqueue(pid, SIGKILL, &uinfo);
	uinfo.si_code = SI_REAP;
	sigqueue(pid, SIGKILL, &uinfo);