Pavel Emelianov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Where was this. I'd like to follow your complete line of thinking. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
