Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52897-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:22:41 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for
 pidfd_open()
Message-ID: <20240205152241.GB15853@redhat.com>
References: <20240131132541.GA23632@redhat.com>
 <20240131132602.GA23641@redhat.com>
 <20240202-helium-eurem-f63c0f9328c0@brauner>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240202-helium-eurem-f63c0f9328c0@brauner>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 02/02, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> > @@ -2050,6 +2051,8 @@ static void pidfd_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *f)
> >
> >  	seq_put_decimal_ll(m, "Pid:\t", nr);
> >
> > +	/* TODO: report PIDFD_THREAD */
>
> So I think we don't need to do anything here. Since PIDFD_THREAD sets
> O_EXCL in file->f_flags and in contrast to do_dentry_open() it isn't
> dropped. So userspace can already detect PIDFD_NONBLOCK as O_NONBLOCK
> and PIDFD_THREAD as O_EXCL.

Ah, indeed, I didn't know that fs/proc/fd.c:seq_show() reports ->f_flags.
Thanks.


OK, what about another TODO in sys_pidfd_send_signal() ?

I mean, should I send a simple patch which changes pidfd_send_signal()
to use do_send_specific() if PIDFD_THREAD ? Or do you think this should
be controlled by pidfd_send_signal's "flags" argument?

I honestly do not know what makes more sense.

Oleg.