Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

From: Christian Brauner
Date: Fri Nov 30 2018 - 18:40:10 EST

On December 1, 2018 12:12:53 PM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:05 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:26 PM Christian Brauner
><christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On December 1, 2018 11:09:58 AM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann
><arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > One humble point I would like to make is that what I care about
>most is a sensible way forward without having to redo essential parts
>of how syscalls work.
>> > I don't want to introduce a sane, small syscall that ends up
>breaking all over the place because we decided to fix past mistakes
>that technically have nothing to do with the patch itself.
>> > However, I do sympathize and understand these concerns.
>> IMHO, it's fine to just replicate all the splits we have for the
>> existing signal system calls. It's ugly, but once it's done, it'll be
>> done for a long time. I can't see a need to add even more signal
>> system calls after this one.
>We definitely need waitid_time64() and rt_sigtimedwait_time64()
>in the very near future.

Right, I remember you pointing this out in a prior mail.
Thanks for working on this for such a long time now, Arnd!
Can we agree to move on with the procfd syscall given the current constraints?
I just don't want to see the syscall being
blocked by a generic problem whose
ultimate solution is to get rid of weird
architectural constraints. :)