Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-47006-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:14:06 +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: <20240131191405.GF2609@redhat.com>
References: <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>
 <20240131184829.GE2609@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240131184829.GE2609@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

Forgot to mention...

And I agree that pidfd_send_signal(flags => PGID/SID) can make
some sense too.

But this a) doesn't depend on PIDFD_THREAD, and b) needs another
patch/discussion.

But again, I am not sure I understood you correctly.

On 01/31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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.