Re: [PATCH 0/7][v8] Container-init signal semantics

[Daniel Lezcano]

Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 20:43 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>   
> >         case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT:
> > -               kernel_halt();
> > -               unlock_kernel();
> > -               do_exit(0);
> > +               if (power_off_pid_ns(current->nsproxy->pid_ns)) {
> > +                       kernel_halt();
> > +                       unlock_kernel();
> > +                       do_exit(0);
> > +               }
> >     
>
> Even if current will get SIGKILLed when zap_pid_ns_processes() is
> called, I see no reason it doesn't call do_exit(0).
Right and unlock_kernel too :)
>   
> >                 break;
> >
> >         case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_POWER_OFF:
> > -               kernel_power_off();
> > -               unlock_kernel();
> > -               do_exit(0);
> > +               if (power_off_pid_ns(current->nsproxy->pid_ns)) {
> > +                       kernel_power_off();
> > +                       unlock_kernel();
> > +                       do_exit(0);
> > +               }
> >     
>
> Same.
>
>   
> >                 break;
> >
> >     

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/