Cedric Le Goater wrote: > Hello ! > >>>> The worst case I can see with pid == 0. Is that it would be a bug >>>> that we can fix later. For other cases it would seem to be a user >>>> space API thing that we get stuck with for all time. >>> We cannot trust userspace application to expect some pid other than >>> positive. All that we can is either use some always-absent pid or >>> send the signal as SI_KERNEL. >>> >>> Our experience show that making decisions like above causes random > <>> applications failures that are hard (or even impossible) to debug. > >> Ok. So I guess I see what you are proposing is picking an arbitrary >> pid, say pid == 2, and reserving that in all pid namespaces and using >> it when we have a pid that does not map to a specific namespace. I'm >> fine with that. >> >> All I care about is that we have a solution, preferably simple, >> to the non-mapped pid problem. > > Pavel, are you against using pid == 0 and setting si_code to SI_KERNEL ? I think I am. A quick grep through the code revealed one place where this can happen, so I believe application are (have to be) somehow prepared to this. > C. > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers