On 12/04/2011 10:27 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Dec 2011, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> * V3 >> - removed lock and serialization of pid_ns_reboot >> * V2 >> - added a lock for the pid namespace to prevent racy call >> to the 'reboot' syscall >> - Moved 'reboot' command assigned in zap_pid_ns_processes >> instead of wait_task_zombie >> - added tasklist lock around force_sig >> - added do_exit in pid_ns_reboot >> - used task_active_pid_ns instead of declaring a new variable in sys_reboot >> - moved code up before POWER_OFF changed to HALT in sys_reboot > Daniel, can you address Miquel's concern? Is it a valid concern, or > not? I assume CAP_REBOOT functionality is still in place inside the > container, so it really does look like userspace would need to know > whether it should drop CAP_REBOOT or not, in order to automatically use > the new feature. Hmm, I missed its email. I think it is worth to have such ability to detect how behaves the reboot syscall vs the pid ns. At present, if we call 'reboot' in a child pid namespace, that will affect the host, we are changing this behavior with this patch. I don't think there is any application doing a shutdown from a child pid namespace, that don't makes sense as the shutdown is invoked after killing all the processes on the system and that could only be done from the init_pid_ns. I would like to address this in a separate patch in order to discuss the best way to do that. Adding a fake 'reboot' parameter returning EINVAL or 0 seems a good solution to detect at runtime if the shutdown is correctly supported inside a container. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
