[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091006023401.GA10132@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:34:01 -0700
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] signals: send_signal: use si_fromuser() to detect
from_ancestor_ns
Oleg Nesterov [oleg@...hat.com] wrote:
| On 10/05, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
| >
| > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@...hat.com] wrote:
| > | Sorry for confusion.
| > |
| > | > But sure, we could use force_sig_info() in caller.
| > |
| > | Yes, because this makes the code more explicit imho. And we can avoid
| > | the further complicatiions in send_signal() path.
| >
| > Although, one small drawback would be the different behavior for the
| > SIGKILL in load_aout_binary() to the container-init itself calling:
| >
| > kill(getpid(), SIGKILL);
|
| could you clarify? load_aout_binary(), like other ->load_binary()
| methods does send_sig(SIGKILL, current, 0) ?
Yes sorry for being cryptic.
If we use force_sig_info() in ->load_binary() methods for the SIGKILL,
they will, correctly, kill the container-init.
But if the container-init itself calls kill(getpid(), SIGKILL), the
container-init will not be killed.
I was just pointing out the small difference in behavior for the
same signal (when we use force_sig_info()).
Thanks for fixing the bug.
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