Daniel Lezcano [daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx] wrote: >> Besides a realistic container-init would block such signals, in which case >> the complexity in the kernel could be viewed as unnecessary. >> > > I am not sure it is good to have the pid 1 immune against signals sent > from outside of the container. cinit is only immune to unhandled signals that terminate/stop the cinit. If a handler is defined for SIGINT, a SIGINT from parent-ns will still be delivered but a SIGINT from a descendant of cinit will be ignored. > From the POV of the parent process, the container init is like any other > process and it may want to kill it with a signal (for notification or > just terminate instead of killing it). > > If the container init is a real init pid, these signals will be blocked > but if we launch something different, eg a 'sleep', Ctrl+C won't work. > eg: lxc-start -n foo sleep 3600 is not interruptible. Yes it is annoying, but a mysleep.c that defines a handler which exits on SIGINT/SIGSEGV/SIGTERM/SIGQUIT.., should still work as expected. (if not, it is a bug). > > That's a bit annoying if we need to plug the container with batch > managers or use them with HPC jobs. > > > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
