[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081223165121.GA18031@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:51:21 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com,
bastian@...di.eu.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][v3] Container-init signal semantics
Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
>
> Container-init must behave like global-init to processes within the
> container and hence it must be immune to unhandled fatal signals from
> within the container (i.e SIG_DFL signals that terminate the process).
>
> But the same container-init must behave like a normal process to
> processes in ancestor namespaces and so if it receives the same fatal
> signal from a process in ancestor namespace, the signal must be
> processed.
>
> Implementing these semantics requires that send_signal() determine pid
> namespace of the sender but since signals can originate from workqueues/
> interrupt-handlers, determining pid namespace of sender may not always
> be possible or safe.
Tested-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>
Tested sending signals to a custom container-init.
Are you planning to address Oleg's comments with a new patch-set,
or with patches on top of this set?
thanks,
-serge
--
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