Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 09/13, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
[...]
>> To respect the current init semantic,
>
> The current init semantic is broken in many ways ;)
Yup. They sure are, but they are pretty set in stone by now. :)
>> shouldn't we discard any unblockable signal (STOP and KILL) sent by a
>> process to its pid namespace init process ? Then, all other signals
>> should be handled appropriately by the pid namespace init.
>
> Yes, I think you are probably right, this should be enough in
> practice. After all, only root can send the signal to /sbin/init. On
> my machine, /proc/1/status shows that init doesn't have a handler for
> non-ignored SIGUNUSED == 31, though.
>
> But who knows? The kernel promises some guarantees, it is not good to
> break them. Perhaps some strange non-standard environment may suffer.
In this case "strange non-standard environments" would mean anyone
running the 'upstart' daemon from recent Ubuntu -- it depends on the
current kernel semantics.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Phone: 03 9621 2377
Level 4, 10 Queen St, Melbourne Web: http://www.cyber.com.au
Cybersource: Australia's Leading Linux and Open Source Solutions Company
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
