Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] pid: add pidctl()

[Daniel Colascione]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:31:42PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:23:37PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:55 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The pidctl() syscalls builds on, extends, and improves translate_pid() [4].
> > > > > I quote Konstantins original patchset first that has already been acked and
> > > > > picked up by Eric before and whose functionality is preserved in this
> > > > > syscall:
> > > >
> > > > We still haven't had a much-needed conversation about splitting this
> > > > system call into smaller logical operations. It's important that we
> > > > address this point before this patch is merged and becomes permanent
> > > > kernel ABI.
> > >
> > > I don't particularly mind splitting this into an additional syscall like
> > > e.g.  pidfd_open() but then we have - and yes, I know you'll say
> > > syscalls are cheap - translate_pid(), and pidfd_open(). What I like
> > > about this rn is that it connects both apis in a single syscall
> > > and allows pidfd retrieval across pid namespaces. So I guess we'll see
> > > what other people think.
> >
> > There's something to be said for
> >
> > pidfd_open(pid_t pid, int pidfd, unsigned int flags);
> >
> > /* get pidfd */
> > int pidfd = pidfd_open(1234, -1, 0);
> >
> > /* convert to procfd */
> > int procfd = pidfd_open(-1, 4, 0);
> >
> > /* convert to pidfd */
> > int pidfd = pidfd_open(4, -1, 0);
>
> probably rather:
>
> int pidfd = pidfd_open(-1, 4, PIDFD_TO_PROCFD);
> int procfd = pidfd_open(-1, 4, PROCFD_TO_PIDFD);
> int pidfd = pidfd_open(1234, -1, 0);

These three operations look like three related but distinct functions
to me, and in the second case, the "pidfd_open" name is a bit of a
misnomer. IMHO, the presence of an "operation name" field in any API
is usually a good indication that we're looking at a family of related
APIs, not a single coherent operation.