[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090120010453.GA14612@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:04:53 -0800
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com, bastian@...di.eu.org,
daniel@...ac.com, xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7][v7] proc: Show SIG_DFL signals to init as
"ignored" signals
Oleg Nesterov [oleg@...hat.com] wrote:
| On 01/17, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| >
| > Init processes ignore SIG_DFL signals unless they are from an ancestor
| > namespace. Ensure /proc/pid/status correcly reports these signals.
|
| This is the user-visible change, and I don't really understand why do we
| need it.
This discussion came up earlier, with Bastian and Roland and my understanding
was that we should fix the SigIgn line in /proc/pid/status - so I had added
a TODO for this patchset.
|
| Imho, this patch can confuse the user-space. Why should we report that,
| say, SIGCONT is ignored by the global init?
But it is ignored right ?
Also, if user space looks at the SigIgn line and assumes that SIGKILL or
SIGUSR1 will kill init, user space can still be confused when it doesn't
really kill - no ?
|
|
| Even if I am wrong, I believe this change is orthogonal to rhis series,
| and should be posted separately.
|
You are right that its not strictly tied to this patchset. init was
dropping SIGKILL before too.
So, should I just post separately or drop altogether ?
Sukadev
--
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