Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:10:25 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Would we want pidfd_open(2) & SO_PEERPIDFD? Message-ID: <CALH631=7MnCAe67yPqG%2BAJfy_CPxf3HUxsfeVvgmiTEXEy27Bg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Z6udhDuj4uBjNUsM@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CALH631mgztNmngL1Hffbbcf0n-kLZP-2YmsMLJ8Xi33HV8uuvw@mail.gmail.com> <Z6udhDuj4uBjNUsM@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631=7MnCAe67yPqG%2BAJfy_CPxf3HUxsfeVvgmiTEXEy27Bg>