[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 2/2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
Yep. That's also what I was talking about, FWIW.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Christian Brauner
<> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:02:06PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christian Brauner <> writes:
>> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 07:59:24AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> >> You never addressed my comment on the previous patch about your use of
>> >
>> > Sorry, that thread exploded so quickly that I might have missed it.
>> >
>> >> private_data here. Why can't you use the struct pid reference that's
>> >> already in the inode?
>> >
>> > If that's what people prefer we can probably use that. There was
>> > precedent for stashing away such data in fs/proc/base.c already for
>> > various other things including user namespaces and struct mm so I
>> > followed this model. A prior version of my patch (I didn't send out) did
>> > retrive the inode via proc_pid() in .open() took an additional reference
>> > via get_pid() and dropped it in .release(). Do we prefer that?
>> If you are using proc/<pid>/ directories as your file descriptors, you
>> don't need to add an open or a release method at all. The existing file
>> descriptors hold a reference to the inode which holds a reference the
>> the struct pid.
>> The only time you need to get a reference is when you need a task
>> and kill_pid_info already performs that work for you.
> Oh, I see what you and Andy are saying now. Sweet, that means we can
> trim down the patch even more. Less code, less headache.
> Thanks!
>> So using proc_pid is all you need to do to get the pid from the existing
>> file descriptors.
>> Eric

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-19 20:40    [W:0.091 / U:1.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site