Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:27:49PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM Tycho Andersen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

These tools also care about ioctls. Adding a system call is a pain,
but the solution is to make adding system calls less of a pain, not to
permanently make the Linux ABI worse.

For user-defined values of "worse" :)

I tend to agree with Tycho here.  But I'm wondering if it might be
worth considering a better ioctl.

/me dons flame-proof hat

We could do:

long better_ioctl(int fd, u32 nr, const void *inbuf, size_t inlen,
const void *outbuf, size_t outlen);

I'm the writer of this patch so take this with a grain of salt.
I think it is a bad idea to stop this patch and force us to introduce a
new type of ioctl().

I agree completely.

An ioctl() is also not easy to use for this task because we want to add
a siginfo_t argument which I actually think provides value and makes
this interface more useful.

You could always have a struct procfd_kill and pass a pointer to
*that*.  But sure, it's ugly.