Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@free.fr> writes: > > >> Ferenc Wagner wrote: >> >> >>> I'd like to use lxc-start as a wrapper, invisible to the parent and >>> the (jailed) child. Of course I could hack around this by not >>> exec-ing lxc-start but keeping the shell around, trap all signals and >>> lxc-killing them forward. But it's kind of ugly in my opinion. >>> >> Ok, got it. I think that makes sense to forward the signals, >> especially for job management. What signals do you want to forward? >> > > Basically all of them. I couldn't find a definitive list of signals > used for job control in SGE, but the following is probably a good > approximation: SIGTTOU, SIGTTIN, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, SIGCONT, SIGWINCH and > SIGTSTP. Yes, that could be a good starting point. I was wondering about SIGSTOP being sent to lxc-start which is not forwardable of course, is it a problem ?
> This is application specific, though, lxc-start shouldn't have > this hard-coded. Ok, from the configuration then. > Looking at the source, the SIGCHLD mechanism could be > mimicked, but LXC_TTY_ADD_HANDLER may get in the way. We should remove LXC_TTY_ADD_HANDLER and do everything in the signal handler of SIGCHLD by extending the handler. I have a pending fix changing a bit the signal handler function. > I'm also worried > about signals sent to the whole process group: they may be impossible to > distinguish from the targeted signals and thus can't propagate correctly. > Good point. Maybe we can setpgrp the first process of the container ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users