On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:04:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
OK, I understand what's going wrong and how to reproduce the
signal-to-parent problem. It does look like a bug in vmlinux.
It happens if the init
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:34:04PM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:04:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
OK, I understand what's going wrong and how to reproduce the
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:53:00AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:15:24AM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
Found the root cause, patch is on the way.
I can test patches if you CC me on them.
I'm still available to test patches :-) Didn't see anything on
Am 13.08.2013 12:36, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:53:00AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:15:24AM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
Found the root cause, patch is on the way.
I can test patches if you CC me on them.
I'm still
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:49:25PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 13.08.2013 12:36, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
In particular I'm having a problem where it looks as if vmlinux is
sending a signal to its parent process on shutdown.
Really?
If so, why does it not kill my shell if I run
OK, I understand what's going wrong and how to reproduce the
signal-to-parent problem. It does look like a bug in vmlinux.
It happens if the init process (PID 1) inside the VM gets a segfault.
In libguestfs we can force that easily, as there is a test path for
exercising segfaults in our init
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:04:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
OK, I understand what's going wrong and how to reproduce the
signal-to-parent problem. It does look like a bug in vmlinux.
It happens if the init process (PID 1) inside the VM gets a segfault.
To add an additional
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I found by experimentation that killing (SIGTERM) the first vmlinux
process only kills part of a UML virtual machine. There are still
vmlinux processes (or threads?) running.
Compare the process listings below
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I found by experimentation that killing (SIGTERM) the first vmlinux
process only kills part of a UML virtual machine. There
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:15:24AM +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
Found the root cause, patch is on the way.
I can test patches if you CC me on them.
Why do you need to kill UML?
Can't you shutdown it?
In the qemu/KVM case it's safe to kill the qemu process, as qemu
catches the
I found by experimentation that killing (SIGTERM) the first vmlinux
process only kills part of a UML virtual machine. There are still
vmlinux processes (or threads?) running.
Compare the process listings below before and after sending the
SIGTERM signal to the head process (25356).
Is there a
11 matches
Mail list logo
