Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][v3] Container-init signal semantics

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> 
> Container-init must behave like global-init to processes within the
> container and hence it must be immune to unhandled fatal signals from
> within the container (i.e SIG_DFL signals that terminate the process).
> 
> But the same container-init must behave like a normal process to 
> processes in ancestor namespaces and so if it receives the same fatal
> signal from a process in ancestor namespace, the signal must be
> processed.
> 
> Implementing these semantics requires that send_signal() determine pid
> namespace of the sender but since signals can originate from workqueues/
> interrupt-handlers, determining pid namespace of sender may not always
> be possible or safe.

Tested-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>

Tested sending signals to a custom container-init.

Are you planning to address Oleg's comments with a new patch-set,
or with patches on top of this set?

thanks,
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/