On December 7, 2018 7:56:44 AM GMT+13:00, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >* Andy Lutomirski: > >>> I suppose that's fine. Or alternatively, when thread group support >is >>> added, introduce a flag that applications have to use to enable it, >so >>> that they can probe for support by checking support for the flag. >>> >>> I wouldn't be opposed to a new system call like this either: >>> >>> int procfd_open (pid_t thread_group, pid_t thread_id, unsigned >flags); >>> >>> But I think this is frowned upon on the kernel side. >> >> I have no problem with it, except that I think it shouldn’t return an >> fd that can be used for proc filesystem access. > >Oh no, my intention was that it would just be used with *_send_signal >and related functions. Let's postpone that discussion a little. I think we don't need a syscall to base this off of pids. As I said I rather send my revived version of CLONE_NEWFD that would serve the same task. The same way we could also just add a new open() flag that blocks fs access completely. I just pitched that idea to Serge a few days back: O_NOCHDIR or similar. That could even be part of Aleksa's path resolution patchset. > >Thanks, >Florian
