Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | On 10/05, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | > | > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | > | Sorry for confusion. | > | | > | > But sure, we could use force_sig_info() in caller. | > | | > | Yes, because this makes the code more explicit imho. And we can avoid | > | the further complicatiions in send_signal() path. | > | > Although, one small drawback would be the different behavior for the | > SIGKILL in load_aout_binary() to the container-init itself calling: | > | > kill(getpid(), SIGKILL); | | could you clarify? load_aout_binary(), like other ->load_binary() | methods does send_sig(SIGKILL, current, 0) ? Yes sorry for being cryptic. If we use force_sig_info() in ->load_binary() methods for the SIGKILL, they will, correctly, kill the container-init. But if the container-init itself calls kill(getpid(), SIGKILL), the container-init will not be killed. I was just pointing out the small difference in behavior for the same signal (when we use force_sig_info()). Thanks for fixing the bug. Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
