forgot to mention...
On 11/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > - We won't wait for an injected process in a pid namespace,
> > or a processes debugged with gdb to be reaped before the pid
> > init process exits if we don't wait.
>
> Yes, and I do not see
On 11/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov writes:
>
> > The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
> > to explain how this code actually works.
> >
> > 1. "Ignore SIGCHLD" looks like optimization but it is not, we also
> >need this for correctness.
> >
> > 2.
On 11/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com writes:
The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
to explain how this code actually works.
1. Ignore SIGCHLD looks like optimization but it is not, we also
need this for correctness.
2. The
forgot to mention...
On 11/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
- We won't wait for an injected process in a pid namespace,
or a processes debugged with gdb to be reaped before the pid
init process exits if we don't wait.
Yes, and I do not see why this is
Oleg Nesterov writes:
> The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
> to explain how this code actually works.
>
> 1. "Ignore SIGCHLD" looks like optimization but it is not, we also
>need this for correctness.
>
> 2. The comment above sys_wait4() could be more clear.
>
>
On 11/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> + * sys_wait4() above can't reap the TASK_DEAD children but we do not
> + * really care, we could reparent them to the global init. We could
> + * exit and reap ->child_reaper even if it is not the last thread in
> + * this pid_ns,
The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
to explain how this code actually works.
1. "Ignore SIGCHLD" looks like optimization but it is not, we also
need this for correctness.
2. The comment above sys_wait4() could be more clear.
3. The comment about TASK_DEAD
The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
to explain how this code actually works.
1. Ignore SIGCHLD looks like optimization but it is not, we also
need this for correctness.
2. The comment above sys_wait4() could be more clear.
3. The comment about TASK_DEAD children
On 11/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
+ * sys_wait4() above can't reap the TASK_DEAD children but we do not
+ * really care, we could reparent them to the global init. We could
+ * exit and reap -child_reaper even if it is not the last thread in
+ * this pid_ns,
Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com writes:
The comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() are simply wrong, we need
to explain how this code actually works.
1. Ignore SIGCHLD looks like optimization but it is not, we also
need this for correctness.
2. The comment above sys_wait4() could be more
10 matches
Mail list logo
