From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7][v7] proc: Show SIG_DFL signals to init as "ignored" signals Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:04:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20090120010453.GA14612@us.ibm.com> References: <20090117202638.GA11825@us.ibm.com> <20090117203753.GH11825@us.ibm.com> <20090117221909.GB3962@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090117221909.GB3962@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, roland@redhat.com, bastian@waldi.eu.org, daniel@hozac.com, xemul@openvz.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Oleg Nesterov [oleg@redhat.com] wrote: | On 01/17, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | > | > Init processes ignore SIG_DFL signals unless they are from an ancestor | > namespace. Ensure /proc/pid/status correcly reports these signals. | | This is the user-visible change, and I don't really understand why do we | need it. This discussion came up earlier, with Bastian and Roland and my understanding was that we should fix the SigIgn line in /proc/pid/status - so I had added a TODO for this patchset. | | Imho, this patch can confuse the user-space. Why should we report that, | say, SIGCONT is ignored by the global init? But it is ignored right ? Also, if user space looks at the SigIgn line and assumes that SIGKILL or SIGUSR1 will kill init, user space can still be confused when it doesn't really kill - no ? | | | Even if I am wrong, I believe this change is orthogonal to rhis series, | and should be posted separately. | You are right that its not strictly tied to this patchset. init was dropping SIGKILL before too. So, should I just post separately or drop altogether ? Sukadev