[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081201202112.GC12493@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:21:12 -0800
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Bastian Blank <bastian@...di.eu.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Protect cinit from fatal signals
Bastian Blank [bastian@...di.eu.org] wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 07:46:34PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| > To protect container-init from fatal signals, set SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE but
| > clear it if it receives SIGKILL from parent namespace - so it is still
| > killable from ancestor namespace.
|
| This sounds like a workaround.
yes...
|
| > Note that container-init is still somewhat special compared to 'normal
| > processes' - unhandled fatal signals like SIGUSR1 to a container-init
| > are dropped even if they are from ancestor namespace. SIGKILL from an
| > ancestor namespace is the only reliable way to kill a container-init.
|
| It sounds not right to make this special case for a "normal" process.
|
| However, no idea how to do this better.
... like I mentioned in the other message, we have tried different
approaches and they were either intrusive or required more drastic
changes in semantics.
Container-inits are special in some ways and this change requires SIGKILL
to terminate them.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists