OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC][PATCH 0/15] Pid namespaces
Re: [PATCH 3/15] kern_siginfo helper [message #15400 is a reply to message #15381] Mon, 30 July 2007 06:07 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Pavel Emelianov is currently offline  Pavel Emelianov
Messages: 1149
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/26, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> TODO: This is more an exploratory patch and modifies only interfaces
>> necessary to implement correct signal semantics in pid namespaces.
>>
>> If the approach is feasible, we could consistently use 'kern_siginfo'
>> in other signal interfaces and possibly in 'struct sigqueue'.
>>
>> We could modify dequeue_signal() to directly work with 'kern_siginfo'
>> and remove dequeue_signal_kern_info().
>
> Well... I know, it is very easy to blame somebody else's patch, and probably
> my taste is not good...
>
> But honestly, I personally think this approach is a horror, and any alternative
> is better :)
>
> I'd rather change dequeue_signal() so that it takes "struct sigqueue *"
> parameter instead of "siginfo_t *", or add a new "int *flags".
>
> OK, this doesn't work anyway, we should do something different. Perhaps
> just do all checks on sender's side.

Yes. Signal handling in namespaces turned out to be the most complicated
part of the set. I start thinking to drop this part till we have the "core"
in -mm tree. Suka, what do you think?

> It is a bit strange that this patch is 3/15, and the rest bits in 11/15,
> not very convenient for the review.

Well, I thought that a split like
1. patches for kernel to prepare it for the set
2. the set itself
is the best to review. Maybe I was wrong, but how to make this then?
E.g. I have a MS_KERNOUNT patch, but its changes are used *much* later.

> Oleg.
>
>

Thanks,
Pavel
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [RFC, PATCH] handle the multi-threaded init's exit() properly
Next Topic: [PATCH 0/14] sysfs cleanups
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Sep 06 12:21:49 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.13123 seconds