On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:02:13PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:14 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Is the current procfd_signal() proposal (under whichever name) sufficient
> > to correctly implement both sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() and sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo()?
>
> Yes, I see no reason why not. My idea is to extend it - after we have a
> basic version in - to also work with:
> /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>
> If I'm not mistaken this should be sufficient to get rt_tgsigqueueinfo.
> The thread will be uniquely identified by the tid descriptor and no
> combination of /proc/<pid> and /proc/<pid>/task/<tid> is needed. Does
> that sound reasonable?
Yes. So it would currently replace rt_gsigqueueinfo() but
not rt_tgsigqueueinfo(), and could be extended to do both
afterwards, without making the interface ugly in any form?
I suppose we can always add more flags if needed, and you
already ensure that flags is zero for the moment.
> > Can we implement sys_rt_sigtimedwait() based on signalfd()?
> >
> > If yes, that would leave waitid(), which already needs a replacement
> > for y2038, and that should then also return a signalfd_siginfo.
> > My current preference for waitid() would be to do a version that
> > closely resembles the current interface, but takes a signalfd_siginfo
> > and a __kernel_timespec based rusage replacement (possibly
> > two of them to let us map wait6), but does not operate on procfd or
> > take a signal mask. That would require yet another syscall, but I
> > don't think I can do that before we want to have the set of y2038
> > safe syscalls.
>
> All sounds reasonable to me but that's not a blocker for the current
> syscall though, is it?
I'd like to at least understand about sys_rt_sigtimedwait() before
we go on, so we all know what's coming, and document the
plans in the changelog.
waitid() probably remains on my plate anyway, and I hope understand
where we're at with it.
Arnd
