[Devel] Re: pid namespace bug ?

[Ferenc Wagner]

Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

>| Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>| 
>|> Daniel Lezcano [daniel.lezcano at free.fr] 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. 

Great, thanks!
-- 
Feri.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers