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. :)
