On 10/05, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > 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. Ah, now I see what you mean. Yes sure, init can't kill itself with or without these changes. But, I think this is supposed behaviour which we do not want to change? Oh. And I guess I misunderstood you before. From the previous email > Makes sense. And we had mentioned earlier that container-init is immune > to suicide I guess this is what you meant, and I fully agree. When I said "I disagree with container-init is immune to suicide", I wrongly thought that you suggest that load_binary()->kill(SIGKILL) should have no effect. I have to apologize for confusion again. I hope we finally understand each other ;) Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
