Re: pid namespace bug ?

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>]

Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Ferenc Wagner [wferi-eEbw3PyuezQ@public.gmane.org] wrote:
> | Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> writes:
> | 
> | > Daniel Lezcano [daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org] wrote:
> | >
> | >>> Besides a realistic container-init would block such signals, in which case
> | >>> the complexity in the kernel could be viewed as unnecessary.
> | >>
> | >> I am not sure it is good to have the pid 1 immune against signals sent  
> | >> from outside of the container.
> | >
> | > cinit is only immune to unhandled signals that terminate/stop the cinit.
> | > If a handler is defined for SIGINT, a SIGINT from parent-ns will still be
> | > delivered but a SIGINT from a descendant of cinit will be ignored.
>
> Sorry. Bad sentence.
>
> Yes, if a handler is defined, the signal will be delivered regardless of
> sender's namespace. 
>   
Thanks Suka for the clarification.

  -- Daniel