On 10/05, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | > | --- TTT_32/kernel/signal.c~FU_2_SEND_SIGNAL 2009-10-04 02:21:55.000000000 +0200 > | +++ TTT_32/kernel/signal.c 2009-10-04 03:09:44.000000000 +0200 > | @@ -928,9 +928,8 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct s > | int from_ancestor_ns = 0; > | > | #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS > | - if (!is_si_special(info) && SI_FROMUSER(info) && > | - task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(t)) <= 0) > | - from_ancestor_ns = 1; > | + from_ancestor_ns = si_fromuser(info) && > | + !task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(t)); > > Makes sense. And we had mentioned earlier that container-init is immune > to suicide but should we add a check for 'current == t' above to cover the > > send_sig(SIGKILL, current, 0); > > in load_aout_binary() and friends > > from_ancestor_ns = si_fromuser(info) && (current == t || > !task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(t))); I don't think so. First of all, this is just ugly. If we need this check we should change the callers, not send_signal(). But more importantly, I disagree with "container-init is immune to suicide" above. This is another issue I was going to discuss later, lets do this now. When load_elf_binary() does send_sig(SIGKILL, current) init must die, because we have no option. Exec failed, but we can't return to user-space with the error code, it is too late. So, imho this patch also fixes this case by accident, but I think it would be better to change load_aout_binary/etc to use force_sig_info() to make the code more explicit. What do you think? Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
