Re: [PATCH 3/3] signalfd: add ability to read siginfo-s without dequeuing signals (v2)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date: 2013-02-08 19:12:20
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On 02/08, Andrey Wagin wrote:
2013/2/7 Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref]:quoted
Andrey, sorry for delay. As for API, I leave this to you and Michael. Not that I like these new flags, but I agree that pread() hack was not pretty too. On 01/29, Andrey Vagin wrote:quoted
+static ssize_t signalfd_peek(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx, + siginfo_t *info, loff_t *ppos, int queue_mask) +{ + loff_t seq = *ppos / sizeof(struct signalfd_siginfo); + int signr = 0; + + if (queue_mask & SIGQUEUE_PRIVATE) + signr = peek_signal(¤t->pending, + &ctx->sigmask, info, &seq); + else if (queue_mask & SIGQUEUE_SHARED) + signr = peek_signal(¤t->signal->shared_pending, + &ctx->sigmask, info, &seq); + (*ppos) += sizeof(struct signalfd_siginfo);Now that this can work even with normal read(), we will actually change f_pos. Then perhaps signalfd_fops->llseek() should work too. But this is minor...lseek works only if FMODE_LSEEK is set. You have explained why read&lseek have strange semantics for SIGNALFD_PEEK.quoted
Damn. But after I wrote this email I realized that llseek() probably can't work. Because peek_offset/f_pos/whatever has to be shared with all processes which have this file opened.
Yes. but I thought you decided to ignore this oddity ;)
So I want to suggest a way how to forbid read() for SIGNALFD_PEEK. file->f_pos can be initialized to -1. read() returns EINVAL in this case. In a man page we will write that signals can be dumped only with help pread(). Is it overload or too ugly?
Well. I do not know. Up to you and Michael.
But honestly, I can't say this all looks really nice. And why do we
need SIGNALFD_PEEK then?
Seriously, perhaps we should simply add signalfd_fops->ioctl() for PEEK.
Or add PTRACE_{PEEK,POKE}_SIGNAL which looks even logical and useful...
And much simpler/straightforward.
But I am not going to argue.
Oleg.