Re: pid namespace bug ?

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

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