Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Alois Wohlschlager <alwoju@gmx.de>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Rolf Eike Beer <eb@emlix.com>,
        Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pid: Allow creation of pidfds to threads
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <11982900.O9o76ZdvQC@genesis>
In-Reply-To: <YlZVnMk39kFHF0Kp@google.com>
References: <3412128.IC5jYiYEAv@genesis> <20220401094225.epianrz3afrhfrqp@wittgenstein> <YlZVnMk39kFHF0Kp@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5582229.DvuYhMxLoT"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: bulk

--nextPart5582229.DvuYhMxLoT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Alois Wohlschlager <alwoju@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pid: Allow creation of pidfds to threads
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <11982900.O9o76ZdvQC@genesis>
In-Reply-To: <YlZVnMk39kFHF0Kp@google.com>

Am Mittwoch, 13. April 2022, 06:46:20 CEST schrieb Matthew Bobrowski:
> For the fanotify API i.e. FAN_REPORT_PIDFD, I don't see there being
> any issues with supporting/returning pidfds which belong to
> non-thread-group leaders. In saying that, for this to be useful from
> the fanotify API POV, I definitely do think we should consider
> supporting the ability to send thread-specific signals via
> pidfd_send_signal(). Adding this extension through the optional flag
> parameter makes sense to me.

I actually started implementing this, but then took it out again because I
couldn't think of a use case. Now that one has been found, I can bring it =
back
in a v2.

--nextPart5582229.DvuYhMxLoT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=GhxY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart5582229.DvuYhMxLoT--