On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:05 -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:38 -0800 > | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. When it's accepted I wonder if it might also be good to contact the manpages list too so they can update the kill/signal manpages. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
