Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-59566-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:56:45 +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: <20240209155644.GD3282@redhat.com>
References: <20240209130620.GA8039@redhat.com>
 <20240209130650.GA8048@redhat.com>
 <20240209-stangen-feuerzeug-17c8662854c9@brauner>
 <20240209154305.GC3282@redhat.com>
 <20240209-radeln-untrennbar-9d4ae05aa4cc@brauner>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240209-radeln-untrennbar-9d4ae05aa4cc@brauner>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP?
>
> Thought about this as well and my feeling is to wait until someone asks
> for it. Right now, we have a reason to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP
> because of Andy's use-case. If someone has a use-case for session groups
> then yes. Otherwise I'd just not bother?

OK, agreed.

and I forgot to mention, if you want to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PRGP you can
look at __kill_pgrp_info().

Oleg.