Oleg Nesterov [[email protected]] wrote: | > @@ -1907,9 +1943,10 @@ relock: | > | > /* | > * Global init gets no signals it doesn't want. | > + * Container-init gets no signals it doesn't want from same | > + * container. | > */ | > - if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) && | > - !signal_group_exit(signal)) | > + if (sig_unkillable(signal, signr) && !signal_group_exit(signal)) | > continue; | | Again, I do not understand why do we need SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE_FROM_NS. | | I thought about the change in get_signal_to_deliver() during the | previous discussion, and I think what we need is: | | if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) && | !sig_kernel_only(sig)) | continue; | | and this was yet another reason for "protect init from unwanted signals more".
I was trying to avoid the clearing of the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE in send_signal() that we had last time. But yes, you are right. I even had a BUG_ON() to confirm SIGKILL/SIGSTOP will never happen for global-init :-). If so, SIGKLL/SIGSTOP to an init can come only from parent ns. So, yes, we can drop this flag. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
