sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > | > | > Cedric Le Goater [clg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | > | > I think you and Eric (and I) are disagreeing about those limitations. > | > | > You take it for granted that a sibling pidns is off limits for signals. > | > | > But the signal wasn't sent using a pid, but using a file (in SIGIO > | > | > case). So since the fs was shared, the signal should be sent. An > | > | > event happened, and the receiver wants to know about it. > | > | > | > | seen that way I agree. > | > | > | > | si_code is set to SI_MESGQ, but what do we put in si_pid ? 0 ? > | > | > | > | we could use the si_errno to pass extra info, like the sending process > | > | lives in a // world ... > | > > | > Does the receiver need to know that sender is in a // world ? probably not. it would mean that the user is container aware. bad idea. > | What is a // world ? > > Parallel world/universe :-) > > I am assuming Cedric used that to refer to a sibling pid ns. yes :) Thanks ! C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
