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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <49B2CE6E.3090501@free.fr>
Date:	Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:43:42 +0100
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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

Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>> 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 ?
>   
I have a simple prototype for the first case, added in attachment.
For the second case, I didn't had time to do it yet as it is not so 
trivial because we force an exec of another process.



View attachment "kill-cinit-at-shutdown.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (2786 bytes)