Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: make signalfd work with io_uring (and aio) POLL

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On 14/11/2019 16.09, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/14/19 7:12 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

>> So, I can't really think of anybody that might be relying on inheriting
>> a signalfd instead of just setting it up in the child, but changing the
>> semantics of it now seems rather dangerous. Also, I _can_ imagine
>> threads in a process sharing a signalfd (initial thread sets it up and
>> blocks the signals, all threads subsequently use that same fd), and for
>> that case it would be wrong for one thread to dequeue signals directed
>> at the initial thread. Plus the lifetime problems.
> 
> What if we just made it specific SFD_CLOEXEC?

O_CLOEXEC can be set and removed afterwards. Sure, we're far into
"nobody does that" land, but having signalfd() have wildly different
semantics based on whether it was initially created with O_CLOEXEC seems
rather dubious.

 I don't want to break
> existing applications, even if the use case is nonsensical, but it is
> important to allow signalfd to be properly used with use cases that are
> already in the kernel (aio with IOCB_CMD_POLL, io_uring with
> IORING_OP_POLL_ADD). Alternatively, if need be, we could add a specific
> SFD_ flag for this.

Yeah, if you want another signalfd flavour, adding it via a new SFD_
flag seems the way to go. Though I can't imagine the resulting code
would be very pretty.

Rasmus