On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:48 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:17:23AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:52 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I'm not going to go into yet another long argument. I prefer pidfd_*.
> >
> > Ok. We're each allowed our opinion.
> >
> > > It's tied to the api, transparent for userspace, and disambiguates it
> > > from process_vm_{read,write}v that both take a pid_t.
> >
> > Speaking of process_vm_readv and process_vm_writev: both have a
> > currently-unused flags argument. Both should grow a flag that tells
> > them to interpret the pid argument as a pidfd. Or do you support
> > adding pidfd_vm_readv and pidfd_vm_writev system calls? If not, why
> > should process_madvise be called pidfd_madvise while process_vm_readv
> > isn't called pidfd_vm_readv?
>
> Actually, you should then do the same with process_madvise() and give it
> a flag for that too if that's not too crazy.
I don't know what you mean. My gut feeling is that for the sake of
consistency, process_madvise, process_vm_readv, and process_vm_writev
should all accept a first argument interpreted as either a numeric PID
or a pidfd depending on a flag --- ideally the same flag. Is that what
you have in mind?
