Re: [PATCH 3/3] Signal semantics for pid namespaces

[sukadev-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org]

Oleg Nesterov [oleg-6lXkIZvqkOAvJsYlp49lxw@public.gmane.org] wrote:
| On 08/31, sukadev-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org wrote:
| >
| > @@ -48,7 +49,7 @@ static int sig_init_ignore(struct task_s
| >  	if (likely(!is_container_init(tsk->group_leader)))
| >  		return 0;
| >  
| > -	if (!in_interrupt())
| > +	if (is_current_in_ancestor_pid_ns(tsk) && !in_interrupt())
| >  		return 0;
| 
| We should return 1 in that case, afaics the logic is wrongly reversed.

Hmm. My unit tests worked as I thought they should :-)

return 1 implies we "ignore the signal" right ?

If the signal is from an ancestor namespace, and we are not in interrupt
context, we don't want to ignore the signal. no ?

| 
| Oleg.