On 09/03, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | On 08/31, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > | > > | > @@ -48,7 +49,7 @@ static int sig_init_ignore(struct task_s > | > if (likely(!is_container_init(tsk->group_leader))) > | > return 0; > | > > | > - if (!in_interrupt()) > | > + if (is_current_in_ancestor_pid_ns(tsk) && !in_interrupt()) > | > return 0; > | > | We should return 1 in that case, afaics the logic is wrongly reversed. > > Hmm. My unit tests worked as I thought they should :-) > > return 1 implies we "ignore the signal" right ? Oops. > If the signal is from an ancestor namespace, and we are not in interrupt > context, we don't want to ignore the signal. no ? You are right of course, sorry ;) Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
