Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-59549-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:43:05 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
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 v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
 PIDFD_THREAD
Message-ID: <20240209154305.GC3282@redhat.com>
References: <20240209130620.GA8039@redhat.com>
 <20240209130650.GA8048@redhat.com>
 <20240209-stangen-feuerzeug-17c8662854c9@brauner>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240209-stangen-feuerzeug-17c8662854c9@brauner>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> How do you feel about the following (untested...) addition?

LGTM, but let me read this patch once again tomorrow, I have
a headache today.

> I've played with PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP as well but that code is
> fairly new to me so I would need some more time.

Heh, I was going to send another email to discuss this ;)

Should be simple, but may be need some simple preparations.

Especially if we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP.

So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP?

Oleg.