Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Fix pidns14 test case

[Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Suka,

So, what should i do finally ?? Drop this ?

Regards--
Subrata

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:56 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: 
> Serge E. Hallyn [serue@us.ibm.com] wrote:
> | Quoting M. Mohan Kumar (mohan@in.ibm.com):
> | > [PATCH] pidns14
> | > 
> | > Container-init may be immune to unhandled fatal signals (like SIGUSR1)
> | > even if they are from ancestor namespace. SIGKILL/SIGSTOP are the only
> | > reliable signals to a container-init from ancestor namespace. Make sure
> | > that container-init will not respond to signals other than
> | > SIGKILL/SIGSTOP
> | 
> | Hmm?  This may or may not be right...  but you start out by saying 'may be
> | immune to', then provide a patch making the testcase TFAIL if is not immune
> | to.  So at the very least anyone on a slightly older kernel will get TFAILs.
> | 
> | I don't think that immunity to SIGUSR1 from ancestor pidns is something we
> | want to guarantee, it's just what is happening.  The proper thing is to
> | not depend on either getting or not getting SIGUSR1, in my opinion.  Suka?
> 
> Yes we did confirm that there is a test for SIGKILL from parent ns.
> We discussed in the bug report on whether to drop or modify the test,
> but leaned towards modifying the test bc if SIGUSR1 does kill a container
> init, then something has changed in the sig_ignored() checks in the kernel.
> 
> Hmm, not a very strong reason to keep the test.  Lets just drop the test :-)
> 
> Sukadev


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list