Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD_THREAD

[Christian Brauner]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 02:15:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The question is what is more useful for userspace when they do:
> > > > pidfd_send_signal(1234, PIDFD_SEND_PROCESS_GROUP)?
> > > >
> > > > (1) They either mean to signal a process group that is headed by 1234.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is what I had in mind, see also another email from me.
> > > Simple, clear, and matches kill(-1234).
> >
> > I went for a walk and kept thinking about this and I agree with you.
> > It will require that 1234 will be a process group leader but I think
> > that this is ok to require that.
> 
> Yes... but I am starting to understand why you mentioned the new
> open PIDFD_PROCESS_GROUP flag... perhaps we can do something like
> this later, but this needs more thinking.
> 
> > +	if (type == PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP)
> > +		ret = kill_pgrp_info(sig, &kinfo, pid);
> 
> I guess you meant
> 
> 	if (type == PIDTYPE_PGID)
> 
> other than that,

Bahaa, yes of course.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!