[Devel] Re: [PATCH 0/7][v7] Container-init signal semantics
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Sun Jan 18 18:09:06 PST 2009
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:38 -0800
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Is this feature is for blocking signals from children to name-space
creator(owner) ? And automatically used when namespace/cgroup is created ?
IOW, Container-init is Namespace-Cgroup-init ?
I'm glad if you add some documentation updates about how-it-works to patch set.
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list