Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xmission.com] wrote:
| sukadev@us.ibm.com writes:
| 
| > Cedric Le Goater [clg@fr.ibm.com] wrote:
| > | > I think you and Eric (and I) are disagreeing about those limitations.
| > | > You take it for granted that a sibling pidns is off limits for signals.
| > | > But the signal wasn't sent using a pid, but using a file (in SIGIO
| > | > case).  So since the fs was shared, the signal should be sent.  An
| > | > event happened, and the receiver wants to know about it.
| > | 
| > | seen that way I agree. 
| > | 
| > | si_code is set to SI_MESGQ, but what do we put in si_pid ? 0 ?
| > | 
| > | we could use the si_errno to pass extra info, like the sending process 
| > | lives in a // world ...
| >
| > Does the receiver need to know that sender is in a // world ? 
| 
| What is a // world ?

Parallel world/universe :-)

I am assuming Cedric used that to refer to a sibling pid ns.

| 
| Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers