From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7][v8] Container-init signal semantics Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: <49B2D23C.8000004@free.fr> References: <20090219030207.GA18783@us.ibm.com> <499D73C8.3090209@free.fr> <20090307190428.GA30594@us.ibm.com> <49B2CE6E.3090501@free.fr> <1236455509.9151.4.camel@bahia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1236455509.9151.4.camel@bahia> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kurz 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 Greg Kurz wrote: > 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). Right and unlock_kernel too :) > >> 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; >> >>