Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 13:30 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Christian Brauner:
> 
> > /* zombies */
> > Zombies can be signaled just as any other process. No special error will be
> > reported since a zombie state is an unreliable state (cf. [3]).
> 
> I still disagree with this analysis.  If I know that the target process
> is still alive, and it is not, this is a persistent error condition
> which can be reliably reported.  Given that someone might send SIGKILL
> to the process behind my back, detecting this error condition could be
> useful.

As I understand it, kill() behaves the same way. I think it's good that
this new syscall keeps the behavior as close as possible to kill().
E.g., this would allow emulating kill() (or a higher level API
equivalent) on top of taskfds without subtle differences in behavior.

As the new syscall supports flags, we could consider introducing a flag
that changes the behavior in the zombie case. However, I think that
should be a separate discussion (after merge of the syscall) and the
default behavior makes sense as is.

Jürg




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux