From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] proc: make /proc/self point to thread
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:49:16 +0200
Message-ID: <20130827174916.GA802@redhat.com>
References: <20130825194844.GA16717@redhat.com> <CA+55aFzbY3zYD1i5x02Z-6K3nHKzJj6227ZBYRLqij9y0eXRqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130826153301.GA15890@redhat.com> <20130826163704.GA21763@redhat.com> <20130826175441.GA28856@redhat.com> <CA+55aFzCghYYF1_dcvBY9XZ82TU9b=hhgFqkGoWpaZuKJ7R6_A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+55aFwAw=AZNqmDNip_P6WiY4zGRNWks-kLwN7ZgJ8JJsAx-A@mail.gmail.com> <20130827143938.GA19425@redhat.com> <20130827144004.GB19425@redhat.com> <CA+55aFzoXyA8TU5XXqaNj1EzZ9H-pbTbJ85--zhWzAOLThyjSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzoXyA8TU5XXqaNj1EzZ9H-pbTbJ85--zhWzAOLThyjSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On 08/27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > /proc/self points to /proc/<tgid>, not to /proc/<tid>, and thus
> > "self" actually means "group leader".
> >
> > Change fs/proc/self.c to print the caller's tid, this is probably
> > what the users actually expect.
>
> Yeah, thinking more about this, this can't work. I think you'd need to
> use "/proc/<tgid>/task/<tid>" wouldn't you?

Why? To me /proc/self == /proc/$((sys_gettid)) looks more natural.
Say, /proc/self/task... But this is subjective.

Not to mention, that would be much more visible change.

> Anyway, does not not sound worth it. Your previous simple patch is
> probably the right thing to do.

OK, lets forget it.

Although to be honest, I was seduced by "Worth testing". I mean I am
just curious, who can suffer from this change? Nevermind, please
ignore.

Oleg.