Re: [PATCH 0/7][v7] Container-init signal semantics

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:26:38 -0800
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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


--
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/