Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:51:21 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][v3] Container-init signal semantics |
| |
Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > Container-init must behave like global-init to processes within the > container and hence it must be immune to unhandled fatal signals from > within the container (i.e SIG_DFL signals that terminate the process). > > But the same container-init must behave like a normal process to > processes in ancestor namespaces and so if it receives the same fatal > signal from a process in ancestor namespace, the signal must be > processed. > > Implementing these semantics requires that send_signal() determine pid > namespace of the sender but since signals can originate from workqueues/ > interrupt-handlers, determining pid namespace of sender may not always > be possible or safe.
Tested-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Tested sending signals to a custom container-init.
Are you planning to address Oleg's comments with a new patch-set, or with patches on top of this set?
thanks, -serge
| |