On 12/22, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | > @@ -1907,9 +1943,10 @@ relock: > | > > | > /* > | > * Global init gets no signals it doesn't want. > | > + * Container-init gets no signals it doesn't want from same > | > + * container. > | > */ > | > - if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) && > | > - !signal_group_exit(signal)) > | > + if (sig_unkillable(signal, signr) && !signal_group_exit(signal)) > | > continue; > | > | Again, I do not understand why do we need SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE_FROM_NS. > | > | I thought about the change in get_signal_to_deliver() during the > | previous discussion, and I think what we need is: > | > | if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) && > | !sig_kernel_only(sig)) > | continue; > | > | and this was yet another reason for "protect init from unwanted signals more". > > I was trying to avoid the clearing of the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE in > send_signal() that we had last time. Well, my plan was to simplify the first series of patches as much as possible, then I thought we can change get_signal_to_deliver(). But now I tend to agree, we should not clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE when we send the signal, and we should pass same_ns/from_parent_ns to prepare_signal() from the start. This way is more "clean". > But yes, you are right. I even had a BUG_ON() to confirm SIGKILL/SIGSTOP > will never happen for global-init :-). If so, SIGKLL/SIGSTOP to an init > can come only from parent ns. > > So, yes, we can drop this flag. Great! Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
