[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6][v3] Protect cinit from blocked fatal signals

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu]

Oleg Nesterov [oleg at redhat.com] wrote:
| > @@ -1907,9 +1943,10 @@ relock:
| >
| >  		/*
| >  		 * Global init gets no signals it doesn't want.
| > +		 * Container-init gets no signals it doesn't want from same
| > +		 * container.
| >  		 */
| > -		if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
| > -		    !signal_group_exit(signal))
| > +		if (sig_unkillable(signal, signr) && !signal_group_exit(signal))
| >  			continue;
| 
| Again, I do not understand why do we need SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE_FROM_NS.
| 
| I thought about the change in get_signal_to_deliver() during the
| previous discussion, and I think what we need is:
| 
| 		if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
| 		    !sig_kernel_only(sig))
| 			continue;
| 
| and this was yet another reason for "protect init from unwanted signals more".

I was trying to avoid the clearing of the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE in
send_signal() that we had last time.

But yes, you are right. I even had a BUG_ON() to confirm SIGKILL/SIGSTOP
will never happen for global-init :-). If so, SIGKLL/SIGSTOP to an init
can come only from parent ns.

So, yes, we can drop this flag.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers