Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46984-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:48:29 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Tycho Andersen <tandersen@netflix.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for pidfd_open()
Message-ID: <20240131184829.GE2609@redhat.com>
References: <ZbQpPknTTCyiyxrP@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127105410.GA13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbUngjQMg+YUBAME@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127163117.GB13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbU7d0dpTY08JgIl@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127193127.GC13787@redhat.com>
 <ZbVrRgIvudX242ZU@tycho.pizza>
 <20240127210634.GE13787@redhat.com>
 <20240129112313.GA11635@redhat.com>
 <CALCETrUFDkt+K9zG8mczxzAFy9t-6Mx5Cz-Sx+it6a4nt+O0pg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUFDkt+K9zG8mczxzAFy9t-6Mx5Cz-Sx+it6a4nt+O0pg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 01/31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Right now, pidfd_send_signal() sends signals to processes, like so:
>
>  * The syscall currently only signals via PIDTYPE_PID which covers
>  * kill(<positive-pid>, <signal>. It does not signal threads or process
>  * groups.
>
> This patch adds PIDFD_THREAD which, potentially confusingly, doesn't
> change this (AFAICS).

Yes,

> So at least that should be documented loudly
> and clearly, IMO.

Please note

	/* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */

this patch adds into pidfd_send_signal().

See also this part of discussion

	> > +	/* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */
	>
	> So I've been thinking about this at the end of last week. Do we need to
	> give userspace a way to send a thread-group wide signal even when a
	> PIDFD_THREAD pidfd is passed? Or should we just not worry about this
	> right now and wait until someone needs this?

	I don't know. I am fine either way, but I think this needs a separate
	patch and another discussion in any case. Anyway should be trivial,
	pidfd_send_signal() has the "flags" argument.

with Christian in https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240130112126.GA26108@redhat.com/

Or did I misunderstand you?

Oleg.