Roland McGrath <[email protected]> writes:
>> can you see any danger to providing a /proc/self_task/ link? (or can you
>> think of a better name/API/approach)
>
> That is a poor name to choose given /proc/self/task exists as something
> else (just try writing a sentence comparing them and then read it aloud).
> Probably /proc/self/task/self is what makes the most sense structurally.
> I don't know if it matters to whatever use you are concerned with to have
> two more steps in the lookup.
Well the only case it could matter is if you aren't allowed to access
/proc/<tgid> which I think may actually be the current selinux behavior.
So if we can't fix /proc/self we need to introduce /proc/task-self at
the top level, just to be certain we don't run into weird cases like
that. Otherwise /proc/self/task/self sounds like a wonderful suggestion.
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
