linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7][v8] Container-init signal semantics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090307190428.GA30594@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:04:28 -0800
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, roland@...hat.com,
	Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7][v8] Container-init signal semantics

> Gregory Kurz proposed a solution:
>    * when shutdown is called and we are not in the init pidns, then we kill 
> the process 1 of the pidnamespace.
>    * when reboot is called and we are not in the init pidns, then we reexec 
> the init process, using the same command line. I guess this one could be 
> easily retrieved if we are able to display /proc/1/cmdline ;)
>
> IMHO, this is a good proposition because it is generic and intuitive, no ?
>
> What do you thing ?

Yes, I think it makes sense. Do we have any prototype patches that
implement this behavior ?
--
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/