[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111205205035.GB7422@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 21:50:35 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, gkurz@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1][V3] Handle reboot in a child pid namespace
On 12/05, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> On 12/04/2011 10:27 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Dec 2011, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Daniel, can you address Miquel's concern? Is it a valid concern, or
> > not? I assume CAP_REBOOT functionality is still in place inside the
> > container, so it really does look like userspace would need to know
> > whether it should drop CAP_REBOOT or not, in order to automatically use
> > the new feature.
>
> Hmm, I missed its email.
Me too... so I am not sure I really understand the problem.
> I would like to address this in a separate patch in order to discuss the
> best way to do that.
Agreed.
> Adding a fake 'reboot' parameter returning EINVAL
> or 0 seems a good solution to detect at runtime if the shutdown is
> correctly supported inside a container.
Or, perhaps, we can implement sys_reboot(REBOOT_SHOULD_NOT_WORK),
sub-init can call it to disable the shutdown ?
This needs the trivial modifications in zap_pid_ns_processes()
and reboot_pid_ns().
Oleg.
--
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