lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7][v7] Container-init signal semantics
    KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com] wrote:
    | On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:38 -0800
    | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | > 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.
    | >
    |
    | Is this feature is for blocking signals from children to name-space
    | creator(owner) ? And automatically used when namespace/cgroup is created ?
    | IOW, Container-init is Namespace-Cgroup-init ?

    I am not sure what "Namespace-cgroup-init refers" to.

    But, yes, this patchset applies to the first process in a pid namespace
    i.e the child of clone(NEWPID) call.

    |
    | I'm glad if you add some documentation updates about how-it-works to patch set.

    Yes, when the patchset is accepted, I am planning to add some notes to
    /sbin/init man page.

    Thanks,

    Sukadev


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-21 04:11    [W:0.021 / U:0.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site