Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-74806-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:35:08 +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 v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
 PIDFD_THREAD
Message-ID: <20240221-hocken-jagdbeute-695072475027@brauner>
References: <20240216-ohnedies-improvisieren-58edcc102b6a@brauner>
 <20240216181214.GA10393@redhat.com>
 <20240220-einwurf-depesche-d8682be0370c@brauner>
 <20240220090255.GA7783@redhat.com>
 <20240220-pragmatisch-parzelle-8a1d10a94fae@brauner>
 <20240220110012.GB7783@redhat.com>
 <20240220-anlegen-feinmechaniker-3c2cfcc3ec01@brauner>
 <20240220162201.GD7783@redhat.com>
 <20240221-zapfhahn-pulsschlag-e8f9d919c350@brauner>
 <20240221125525.GA16773@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240221125525.GA16773@redhat.com>

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:55:26PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/21, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:22:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > +       /* Currently unused. */
> > > > > > +       if (info)
> > > > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, to me this looks like the unnecessary restriction... And why?
> > > >
> > > > Because right now we aren't sure that it's used
> > >
> > > Yes, but...
> > >
> > > > and we aren't sure what use-cases are there.
> > >
> > > the same use-cases as for rt_sigqueueinfo() ?
> >
> > Specifically for pidfd_send_signal() I mean. To me it seems very
> > unlikely that anyone would be opening a pidfd to itself
> 
> Ah, with this, I do agree. And that is why (I think) we can remove
> the "task_pid(current) != pid" check in the "info != NULL" branch.

Ok, so let's try that. :)