Re: Signals to cinit

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> Serge E. Hallyn [serue@us.ibm.com] wrote:
> | Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
> | > > | Perhaps we can start with something like the patch below. Not that I like
> | > > | it very much though. We should really place this code under
> | > > | CONFIG_I_DO_CARE_ABOUT_NAMESPACES ;)
> | > >
> | > > CONFIG_PID_NS ?
> | > 
> | > Ah yes, we have it ;)
> | 
> | Except I believe all distros at this point enable CONFIG_PID_NS, so
> | I'm not sure it's the right thing to use.
> 
> But if they do enable CONFIG_PID_NS they would want the signals to
> behave correctly ? IIUC, the reason we want to the hide the code
> is that it is not clean i.e if its not experimental or error-prone,
> are there other reasons someone with CONFIG_PID_NS=y want to hide it ?

I was going to argue yes, but again following my reasoning to its
logical conclusion leads us to a config parameter being bad anyway.

So yeah, never mind.

-serge