On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:29 AM Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > Have you considered accepting a cgroup fd to pidfd_send_signal and > > realize this operation through this syscall? (Just asking as it may > > prevent some of these consequences whereas bring other unclarities.) > > That's semantically quite wrong on several fronts, I think. > pidfd_send_signal() operates on pidfds (and for a quirky historical > reason /proc/<pid> though that should die at some point). Making this > operate on cgroup fds is essentially implicit multiplexing which is > pretty nasty imho. In addition, this is a cgroup concept not a pidfd > concept. What's your take on a new syscall cgroupfd_send_signal()? One complexity would be potentially different semantics for v1 and v2.
