From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kurz Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7][v8] Container-init signal semantics Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:51:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1236455509.9151.4.camel@bahia> References: <20090219030207.GA18783@us.ibm.com> <499D73C8.3090209@free.fr> <20090307190428.GA30594@us.ibm.com> <49B2CE6E.3090501@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49B2CE6E.3090501@free.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Containers , Oleg Nesterov , roland@redhat.com List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 20:43 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT: > - kernel_halt(); > - unlock_kernel(); > - do_exit(0); > + if (power_off_pid_ns(current->nsproxy->pid_ns)) { > + kernel_halt(); > + unlock_kernel(); > + do_exit(0); > + } Even if current will get SIGKILLed when zap_pid_ns_processes() is called, I see no reason it doesn't call do_exit(0). > break; > > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF: > - kernel_power_off(); > - unlock_kernel(); > - do_exit(0); > + if (power_off_pid_ns(current->nsproxy->pid_ns)) { > + kernel_power_off(); > + unlock_kernel(); > + do_exit(0); > + } Same. > break; > -- Gregory Kurz gkurz@fr.ibm.com Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore.