Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-58289-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:33:39 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, 
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD_THREAD
Message-ID: <20240208-klopapier-aushebeln-446ac80a6e9b@brauner>
References: <20240207114549.GA12697@redhat.com>
 <20240208-fragt-prospekt-7866333b15f0@brauner>
 <20240208135344.GD19801@redhat.com>
 <20240208143407.GF19801@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240208143407.GF19801@redhat.com>

> Is prepare_kill_siginfo() correct when we send a signal to the child
> pid namespace? si_pid = task_tgid_vnr(current) doesn't look right in
> this case but perhaps I am totally confused.
> 
> And why do we need it at all? Can't sys_kill() and pidfd_send_signal()
> just use SEND_SIG_NOINFO?

Yeah, good point. I don't remember as it's been quite a while ago. My
guess is that it just tried to mirror kill() itself without being aware
of SEND_SIG_NOINFO. If you don't find anything wrong with this then
switch it to SEND_SIG_NOINFO in a preparatory patch we can backport,
please.