On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:39:10PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:14:01PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:07 PM Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What would be your opinion to having a > > > > /proc/<pid>/handle > > > > file instead of having a dirfd. > > > > > > This is even worse than depending on PROC_FS. Just for the dependency > > > pidfd code should be backed out immediately. Forget about /proc. > > > > We already have pidfds, and we've had them since /proc was added ages > > ago. > > New pidfd code (or whatever the name) should NOT depend on /proc and > should not interact with VFS at all at any point (other than probably > being a descriptor on a fake filesystem). The reason is that /proc is > full of crap and you don't want to spill that into new and hopefully > properly designed part of new code.
Yes, I agree. That's why I was thinking that translate_pid() is a good candidate to provide that decoupling.
