From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2588CC32789 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C828C2081F for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C828C2081F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hallyn.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727861AbeKBXlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:41:39 -0400 Received: from mail.hallyn.com ([178.63.66.53]:55046 "EHLO mail.hallyn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727668AbeKBXlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2018 19:41:39 -0400 Received: by mail.hallyn.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D291B5D3; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:34:17 +0000 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Christian Brauner Cc: Joel Fernandes , Aleksa Sarai , Daniel Colascione , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Tim Murray , Suren Baghdasaryan , ebiederm@xmission.com, luto@amacapital.net, serge@hallyn.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement /proc/pid/kill Message-ID: <20181102143417.GA19304@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20181030204501.jnbe7dyqui47hd2x@yavin> <20181030214243.GB32621@google.com> <20181030222339.ud4wfp75tidowuo4@yavin> <20181030223343.GB105735@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> <20181031025655.yz7lfhswk7igb3ty@yavin> <20181101204059.GA102756@google.com> <20181102094602.z5otkwrqtchpuhfm@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181102094602.z5otkwrqtchpuhfm@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Christian Brauner (christian.brauner@canonical.com): > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:40:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:24:00PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > > > > On 2018-10-31, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > >> > I think Aleksa's larger point is that it's useful to treat processes > > > >> > as other file-descriptor-named, poll-able, wait-able resources. > > > >> > Consistency is important. A process is just another system resource, > > > >> > and like any other system resource, you should be open to hold a file > > > >> > descriptor to it and do things to that process via that file > > > >> > descriptor. The precise form of this process-handle FD is up for > > > >> > debate. The existing /proc/$PID directory FD is a good candidate for a > > > >> > process handle FD, since it does almost all of what's needed. But > > > >> > regardless of what form a process handle FD takes, we need it. I don't > > > >> > see a case for continuing to treat processes in a non-unixy, > > > >> > non-file-descriptor-based manner. > > > >> > > > >> That's what I'm proposing in the API for which I'm gathering feedback. > > > >> I have presented parts of this in various discussions at LSS Europe last week > > > >> and will be at LPC. > > > >> We don't want to rush an API like this though. It was tried before in > > > >> other forms > > > >> and these proposals didn't make it. > > > > > > > > :+1: on a well thought-out and generic proposal. As we've discussed > > > > elsewhere, this is an issue that really would be great to (finally) > > > > solve. > > > > > > Excited to see this and please count me in for discussions around this. thanks. > > > > > > > Just a quick question, is there a track planned at LPC for discussing this > > new proposal or topics around/related to the proposal? > > > > If not, should that be planned? > > There isn't currently one planned but I'm happy to have a hallway track > session around this. > > But note, I think not all relevant people are going to be there (e.g. > Andy). File descriptors for processes seems interesting to a lot of > people so I'm going to send out a pitch of the idea I have and see how > much I'm going to get yelled at latest on Tuesday. Even if it just > triggers a design discussion. > I have been urged by people I pitched this to to send it to lkml > already. Sorry for the delay and the initial non-transparency. The only > reason I didn't do it right away was to ensure that this idea is not > completely crazy. :) (Eric probably still thinks I am though. :)) > It's just that I'm at a conference and I want to have a nicer writeup of > this. Given the speed with which this is all coming I have given up on > preparing a first set of patches. :) > > Christian Sounds good, thanks, looking forward to it.