Thanks Suka, On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 12:31 -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Subrata Modak [[email protected]] wrote: > | > | > > pidns21: > | > > The pidns21.c testcase verifies that container-init is terminated > | > > by SIGUSR1 when: > | > > - a handler is specified for SIGUSR1, > | > > - container-init blocks SIGUSR1, > | > > - parent queues SIGUSR1 and > | > > - handler for SIGUSR1 is set to system default before SIGUSR1 is > | > > unblocked. > > I know I had acked this test before, but back then the actual implementation > of the signal semantics in the kernel were not complete. > > To simplify the implementation of the semantics, it was decided that > SIGKILL/SIGSTOP would be the only reliable signals from a parent > container. IOW, container-init would ignore SIGUSR1 or SIGINT, SIGQUIT > etc even if sent from a parent container. > > See patchset/discussion: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/17/131 > > (which is not yet merged, but appears to be close to consensus) > > The rationale for this simplification is that any serious > 'container-init' would explicitly SIG_IGN all signals that it is > not interested in. So the only signals that would be in SIG_DFL > state would be SIGKILL/SIGSTOP. > > Effectively, testcase pidns21 will fail if/when the above patchset > (specifically, patch 5/6) is merged.
Gowri, Kindly update this test when the patch makes into next stable kernel release. Regards-- Subrata ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
