Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:44:16 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Would we want pidfd_open(2) & SO_PEERPIDFD? Message-ID: <Z6xDQE8Xj0DEUYOs@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CALH631=oFo9ZidCQOQ4eWOnNGRDG0yjsrSnL-D=VTNemx591uw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALH631mgztNmngL1Hffbbcf0n-kLZP-2YmsMLJ8Xi33HV8uuvw@mail.gmail.com> <Z6udhDuj4uBjNUsM@kib.kiev.ua> <CALH631=7MnCAe67yPqG%2BAJfy_CPxf3HUxsfeVvgmiTEXEy27Bg@mail.gmail.com> <Z6wuyS4uBQJbCG-c@kib.kiev.ua> <CALH631=oFo9ZidCQOQ4eWOnNGRDG0yjsrSnL-D=VTNemx591uw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:24:36AM +0300, Gleb Popov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 8:17 AM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:10:25AM +0300, Gleb Popov wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:57 PM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The semantic of the Linux' fd returned by pidfd_open() is not compatible > > > > with our pidfd. > > > > > > What's the difference, exactly? > > > I mean, it is still a descriptor and the only thing I need to do with > > > it is check if it is still open. We even have pdgetpid() to go from > > > the fd to a PID. This all looks like a perfect match to me. > > > > Read the man page for Linux pidfd_open(), and compare with our procdesc(4). > > The one feature _you plan to use_ might be almost identical, but everything > > else is different. > > So, that's a "no" to my original question and my way forward is > patching D-Bus itself? This most likely provides the no answer to your first question. For the second one, you probably need to explain more what do you try to achieve.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Z6xDQE8Xj0DEUYOs>