Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

[Joel Fernandes]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:05 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/18 11:54 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Mon 2018-11-05 13:22:05, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> >> State explicitly that holding a /proc/pid file descriptor open does
> >> not reserve the PID. Also note that in the event of PID reuse, these
> >> open file descriptors refer to the old, now-dead process, and not the
> >> new one that happens to be named the same numeric PID.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Colascione <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 7 +++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> Moved paragraphed to start of /proc/pid section; added signed-off-by.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> >> index 12a5e6e693b6..0b14460f721d 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
> >> @@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ process running on the system, which is named after the process ID (PID).
> >>  The link  self  points  to  the  process reading the file system. Each process
> >>  subdirectory has the entries listed in Table 1-1.
> >>
> >> +Note that an open a file descriptor to /proc/<pid> or to any of its
> >> +contained files or subdirectories does not prevent <pid> being reused
> >> +for some other process in the event that <pid> exits. Operations on
> >
> > "does not" -> "may not"?
> >
> > We want to leave this unspecified, so that we can change it in future.
>
> Why can't the documentation describe the current implementation, and
> change in the future if the implementation changes? I doubt somebody
> would ever rely on the pid being reused while having the descriptor
> open. How would that make sense?
>

Agreed. I am also of the opinion that this should be documented.

 - Joel