From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:27:46 -0600 Message-ID: <20181206222746.GB9224@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20181206121858.12215-1-christian@brauner.io> <87sgzahf7k.fsf@xmission.com> <878t12efg3.fsf@xmission.com> <20181206174129.taakmwekysbkaosu@brauner.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: Christian Brauner , "Eric W. Biederman" , Daniel Colascione , LKML , Linux API , Andy Lutomirski , Arnd Bergmann , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Jann Horn , Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Aleksa Sarai , Al Viro , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Tim Murray , linux-man , Florian Weimer , Thomas Gleixner , X86 ML List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:30:40AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > I feel changing the name around by a single persons preferences is not > > really a nice thing to do community-wise. So I'd like to hear other > > people chime in first before I make that change. > > I don't think the name is hugely critical (but it's always the hardest > to settle on). My preference order would be: > > taskfd_send_signal() > pidfd_send_signal() > procfd_send_signal() > fd_send_signal() imo, either procfd_send_signal() or taskfd_send_signal() It seems to me that using flags later to specify sending to pgrp vs thread is fine: it's specifying how to interpret the 'fd' in 'procfd_send_signal()'. > But, agreed, I think fdkill() should not be used. > > -- > Kees Cook