pid namespace bug ?

[Ferenc Wagner]

Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Daniel Lezcano [daniel.lezcano at free.fr] wrote:
>
>>> Besides a realistic container-init would block such signals, in which case
>>> the complexity in the kernel could be viewed as unnecessary.
>>
>> I am not sure it is good to have the pid 1 immune against signals sent  
>> from outside of the container.
>
> cinit is only immune to unhandled signals that terminate/stop the cinit.
> If a handler is defined for SIGINT, a SIGINT from parent-ns will still be
> delivered but a SIGINT from a descendant of cinit will be ignored.

So is it impossible to send SIGINT to cinit from the container, even if
it has a handler for that?  Your other reply (and the note in kill(2))
seems to say it's possible, so I'm confused again...
-- 
Thanks,
Feri.