Sukadev Bhattiprolu <suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > This patchset implements the design/simplified semantics suggested by > Oleg Nesterov. The simplified semantics for container-init are: > > - container-init must never be terminated by a signal from a > descendant process. > > - container-init must never be immune to SIGKILL from an ancestor > namespace (so a process in parent namespace must always be able > to terminate a descendant container). > > - container-init may be immune to unhandled fatal signals (like > SIGUSR1) even if they are from ancestor namespace (SIGKILL is > the only reliable signal from ancestor namespace).
It sounds you are still struggling to get something that works and gets done what needs to be done. So let me suggest a simplified semantic that should be easier to implement and test, and solves the biggest problem that we must solve in the kernel. - container-init ignores SIGKILL and SIGSTOP. - container-init is responsible for setting the rest of the signals to SIG_IGN. If that isn't enough for all of the init's we can go back and solve more in kernel land. That simplified semantic is certainly enough for sysvinit. > Limitations/side-effects of current design > > - Container-init is immune to suicide - kill(getpid(), SIGKILL) is > ignored. Use exit() :-) That sounds like correct behavior. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
