On March 28, 2019 6:38:15 AM EDT, Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> All that said, thanks for the work on this once again. My intention >is >> just that we don't end up with an API that could have been done >better >> and be cleaner to use for potential users in the coming years. > >Thanks for your input on all of this. I still don't find multiplexers >in >the style of seccomp()/fsconfig()/keyctl() to be a problem since they >deal with a specific task. They are very much different from ioctl()s >in >that regard. But since Joel, you, and Daniel found the pidctl() >approach >not very nice I dropped it. The interface needs to be satisfactory for >all of us especially since Android and other system managers will be >the >main consumers. >So let's split this into pidfd_open(pid_t pid, unsigned int flags) >which >allows to cleanly get pidfds independent procfs and do the translation >to procpidfds in an ioctl() as we've discussed in prior threads. This >should also accommodate comments and ideas from Andy and Jann. >I'm coding this up now. This sounds quite sensible to me. Thanks! Joel Fernandes, Android kernel team Sent from k9-mail on Android
