Re: Would we want pidfd_open(2) & SO_PEERPIDFD?

Reply: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: Would we want pidfd_open(2) & SO_PEERPIDFD?"
In reply to: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: Would we want pidfd_open(2) & SO_PEERPIDFD?"
Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]

From: Gleb Popov <arrowd_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:10:25 UTC

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.