Suka, So, what should i do finally ?? Drop this ?
Regards-- Subrata On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:56 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Serge E. Hallyn [[email protected]] wrote: > | Quoting M. Mohan Kumar ([email protected]): > | > [PATCH] pidns14 > | > > | > Container-init may be immune to unhandled fatal signals (like SIGUSR1) > | > even if they are from ancestor namespace. SIGKILL/SIGSTOP are the only > | > reliable signals to a container-init from ancestor namespace. Make sure > | > that container-init will not respond to signals other than > | > SIGKILL/SIGSTOP > | > | Hmm? This may or may not be right... but you start out by saying 'may be > | immune to', then provide a patch making the testcase TFAIL if is not immune > | to. So at the very least anyone on a slightly older kernel will get TFAILs. > | > | I don't think that immunity to SIGUSR1 from ancestor pidns is something we > | want to guarantee, it's just what is happening. The proper thing is to > | not depend on either getting or not getting SIGUSR1, in my opinion. Suka? > > Yes we did confirm that there is a test for SIGKILL from parent ns. > We discussed in the bug report on whether to drop or modify the test, > but leaned towards modifying the test bc if SIGUSR1 does kill a container > init, then something has changed in the sig_ignored() checks in the kernel. > > Hmm, not a very strong reason to keep the test. Lets just drop the test :-) > > Sukadev ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
