Re: RFC: on adding new CLONE_* flags [WAS Re: [PATCH 0/4] clone: add CLONE_PIDFD]

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:29:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> Anyway, clone(2) is an enormous mess.  Surely the right solution here
> is to have a whole new process creation API that takes a big,
> extensible struct as an argument, and supports *at least* the full
> abilities of posix_spawn() and ideally covers all the use cases for
> fork() + do stuff + exec().  It would be nifty if this API also had a
> way to say "add no_new_privs and therefore enable extra functionality
> that doesn't work without no_new_privs".  This functionality would
> include things like returning a future extra-privileged pidfd that
> gives ptrace-like access.

You had been two weeks too late with that, and a bit too obvious with the use
of "surely" too close to the beginning...

If it was _not_ a belated AFD posting, alt.tasteless is over -> that way...