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

From: Christian Brauner
Date: Fri Nov 30 2018 - 20:25:37 EST

On November 30, 2018 10:40:49 AM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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)
>> > to correctly implement both sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() and
>> Yes, I see no reason why not. My idea is to extend it - after we have
>> basic version in - to also work with:
>> /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>
>> If I'm not mistaken this should be sufficient to get
>> 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?

Yes. :)

>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
>> > 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
>> > 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