Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:05:00 -0800 | From | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |