Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Nov 27, 2007 7:49 PM, Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> > > We may be stuck with the current broken behavior for backwards >> > > compatibility reasons but lets try fixing our ancient bug for the 2.6.25 >> > > time frame and see if anyone screams. >> >> It's not broken. It's just not the feature you're looking for. > > well it's quite broken at the moment and we are looking for solutions > not for a blame game :-) You might have read the thread where i describe > what i had to go through to do something fairly trivial.
Yes. In a lot of ways if you access /proc/self and you get back information that does not correspond to yourself the result is nonsense. Which is a fairly mighty problem. I'm still trying to understand which will break user space more, adding /proc/task or changing /proc/self. >> This one is probably best: >> /proc/task -> 123/task/456 >> (with both numbers showing) > > this sounds good to me. If it's a symlink then there's not much other > choice because the thread PIDs do not even show up under /proc anymore. The name sounds good to me. I am not certain the two components make sense as we have a possible permission problem where it is remotely possible that a task will have permission to access /proc/<tid> but not /proc/<tgid>. We certainly need to think through that case before making it to a stable kernel. The reason I care is that we need to fix /proc/mounts. So once we have /proc/task we can also have change /proc/mounts to be a symlink to /proc/task/mounts. Once we get the /proc/mounts thing sorted out. There are several other entries in /proc that need to that need to follow in it's wake as they also become per namespace. /proc/net and /proc/sysvipc for starters. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/