From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastian Blank Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Protect cinit from fatal signals Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:06:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20081202120606.GD1132@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> References: <20081126034242.GA23120@us.ibm.com> <20081126034634.GD23238@us.ibm.com> <20081127010753.GB13545@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20081201202112.GC12493@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081201202112.GC12493@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Cc: oleg@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, roland@redhat.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@openvz.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 12:21:12PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Container-inits are special in some ways and this change requires SIGKILL > to terminate them. No. They have are not special from the outside namespace. Also it was discussed to use pid namespaces to preserve the local pid of a process during snapshot/restore. This means that every process may get the state of a container-init. And then it is not longer a wise idea to make them behave different from the outside. Bastian -- I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth. -- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9