Re: [RFC PATCH] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for pidfd_open()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Right now, pidfd_send_signal() sends signals to processes, like so:
>
>  * The syscall currently only signals via PIDTYPE_PID which covers
>  * kill(<positive-pid>, <signal>. It does not signal threads or process
>  * groups.
>
> This patch adds PIDFD_THREAD which, potentially confusingly, doesn't
> change this (AFAICS).

Yes,

> So at least that should be documented loudly
> and clearly, IMO.

Please note

	/* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */

this patch adds into pidfd_send_signal().

See also this part of discussion

	> > +	/* TODO: respect PIDFD_THREAD */
	>
	> So I've been thinking about this at the end of last week. Do we need to
	> give userspace a way to send a thread-group wide signal even when a
	> PIDFD_THREAD pidfd is passed? Or should we just not worry about this
	> right now and wait until someone needs this?

	I don't know. I am fine either way, but I think this needs a separate
	patch and another discussion in any case. Anyway should be trivial,
	pidfd_send_signal() has the "flags" argument.

with Christian in https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240130112126.GA26108@xxxxxxxxxx/

Or did I misunderstand you?

Oleg.