Pavel Emelianov wrote: > 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 Sorry. I have misprinted. I meant "I think I am *NOT*". My bad :( > 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
