On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:34:02AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:24 AM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:19 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From pure API perspective that's all I care about: independence of procfs. > > > Once we have pidfd_open() we can cleanly signal threads etc. > > > > But "independence from procfs" means that you damn well don't then do > > "oh, now I have a pidfd, I want to turn it into a /proc fd and then > > munge around there". > > > > So I'm literally saying that it had better really *be* independent > > from /proc. It is the standalone version, but it's most definitely > > also the version that doesn't then give you secret access to /proc. > > Just to be clear, I'm not proposing granting secret access to procfs, > and as far as I can see, nobody else is either. We've been talking > about making it easier to avoid races when you happen to want a pidfd > and a procfs fd that point to the same process, not granting access > that you didn't have before. If you'd rather not connect procfs and > pidfds, we can take this functionality off the table. This is dead! Nothing like this will make it through this tree. I have no intention of endangering pidfd_send_signal(). Christian
