Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Ferenc Wagner [wferi@xxxxxxx] wrote: > | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > | > | > 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. > > Sorry. Bad sentence. > > Yes, if a handler is defined, the signal will be delivered regardless of > sender's namespace. > Thanks Suka for the clarification. -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers