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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site