Bastian Blank [bastian@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | > Secondly, a poorly written container-inits can take the entire container down, | > So we expect that container-inits to handle/ignore all signals rather than | > SIG_DFL them. Current global inits do that today and container-inits should | > too. It does not look like an unreasonable requirement. | | So you intend to workaround tools which are used as container-init but | does not qualify for this work. Why? Sorry, but I don't understand the "does not qualify for this work" part. Can you please rephrase ? | | > So the basic requirements are: | > | > - container-init receives/processes all signals from ancestor namespace. | > - container-init ignores fatal signals from own namespace. | > | > We are simplifying the first to say that: | > | > - parent-ns must have a way to terminate container-init | > - cinit will ignore SIG_DFL signals that may terminate cinit even if | > they come from parent ns | | This is no simplification. This are more constraints. Yes cinit ignoring SIG_DFL exit signals from parent-ns is a constraint. So if we run say sshd as container-init, we can't use SIGINT to terminate it, but need SIGKILL The question is whether this constraint makes any serious/real cinits unusable ? The behavior at present is that cinits can be terminated from within and cinits cannot do anything in user-space. With this incremental step at least user space has an option of ignoring such signals. Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers