On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 18:10 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Rishikesh ([email protected]): > > Subrata Modak wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:59 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > >> > > > > > > Suka/Gowri, > > > > > > Are we still looking into these tests ? > > > > > > > > > Anyone still looking into it ? Still i am getting failure for pidns21 > > with latest ltp release. > > The patch in question is upstream, so pidns21.c will always > fail and should be removed from ltp.
Ok. I did that just now. Regards-- Subrata > > It's worth testing that the container init survives SIGUSR1 > from a child, but whether it survives or dies from a parent > we don't particularly care. > > -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
