Eric W. Biederman wrote: > 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. The line concerning why I think that sending a signal from SI_KERNEL is good solution? > Eric > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
