Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:39:49 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Send a SIGCHLD to the init's pid namespace parent when reboot |
| |
On 08/22, Bruno Prémont wrote: > > On Mon, 22 August 2011 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 08/22, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > > > > If we pass the reason to the exit_code of the init process, that will be > > > a bit weird as the process is signaled and did not exited no ? > > > > Just in case, you shouldn't change ->exit_code blindly. We should only > > change it if init was a) SIGKILL'ed and b) pid_ns->reboot_cmd is set. > > In this case we can assume that it was killed by sys_reboot. > > > > Now. I didn't really mean exit_state should be equal to sys_reboot's > > cmd arg. I thought about something like > > > > swicth (reboot_cmd) { > > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART: > > code = SIGHUP; > > break; > > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT: > > code = SIGINT; // doesn't really matter what we report > > ... > > } > > Isn't it possible to add the two cases to si_code possible values, e.g. > CDL_RESTART, CDL_HALT (or CDL_SYS_RESTART, CDL_SYS_HALT
How? You should change do_wait() paths then. Even if we could, personally I'd strongly object ;) Look, you have the very specific problem. The kernel can't do everything to make everyone happy. There is tradeoff.
But if you really meant siginfo->si_code, I do not understand at all what you actually mean. This info is not preserved when the task exits.
> to avoid possible > confusion with CDL_STOPPED)?
How it is possible to confuse this with CDL_STOPPED?
> Then on sys_reboot() flag container init and kill it (this way sys_reboot() > preserves its "will not return on success for restart/halt" scematic)?
This is what I suggested...
> Then container init would see CLD_KILLED replaced with matching reboot > reason.
For what? its parent need this info, not container init. I guess I got lost completely.
> Playing with the exit code is probably more problematic
OK, then please do something else. I do not pretend I really understand what do you really need to solve your problem. But please do not forget the kernel is already very complex and full of misc hacks ;)
> > And, iiuc, the point was to "fix" sys_reboot() so that we do not need > > to mofify the distro/userspace? > > That's definitely the goal (not modify distro/userspace running inside > container).
In this case I do not understand how prctl() can help.
But please do not try to convince me, this is simply unnecessary ;)
Oleg.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |