From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-4.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.124] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by h25xhf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNqSm-00057X-TH for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:50:40 +0000 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]) by 1b2kzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1MNqSl-0002Uf-W9 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:50:40 +0000 From: Subrata Modak In-Reply-To: <20090701195605.GA23307@us.ibm.com> References: <20090701165923.GC3237@in.ibm.com> <20090701182005.GC17998@us.ibm.com> <20090701195605.GA23307@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:20:23 +0530 Message-Id: <1246895423.4887.43.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Fix pidns14 test case Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Cc: "M. Mohan Kumar" , sachinp@in.ibm.com, ltp-list@lists.sf.net 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