Re: [PATCH 0/2] Send a SIGCHLD to the init's pid namespace parent when reboot

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 08/22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> If we pass the reason to the exit_code of the init process, that will be
> a bit weird as the process is signaled and did not exited  no ?

Just in case, you shouldn't change ->exit_code blindly. We should only
change it if init was a) SIGKILL'ed and b) pid_ns->reboot_cmd is set.
In this case we can assume that it was killed by sys_reboot.

Now. I didn't really mean exit_state should be equal to sys_reboot's
cmd arg. I thought about something like

	swicth (reboot_cmd) {
	case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART:
		code = SIGHUP;
		break;
	case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT:
		code = SIGINT;	// doesn't really matter what we report
		...
	}

we know that init can't be killed by SIGHUP/SIGINT, and this can't be
confused with the case when init does exit(exit_code).

But in fact I do not not think that WIFSIGNALED() is that important.
init shouldn't exit anyway.

> Furthermore, how to differentiate an application container (eg. a
> script) exiting with an error with the same value of a reboot reason ?

Well, I think it is better to fix the script than the kernel.


Daniel, I am not arguing. I agree that this looks like the hack anyway.
Just I think that other approaches are even worse imho. We should try
to make the kernel change as simple as possible.


> Wouldn't make sense to let the user to specify a signal via prctl where
> the si_code is filled with the reason ?

Sorry, I don't quite understand the idea...

And, iiuc, the point was to "fix" sys_reboot() so that we do not need
to mofify the distro/userspace?



In short. Please do what you like more. But I'd like you to know,
I'll argue with any complications which (afaics!) we can avoid,
I promise ;)

Oleg.