[Lxc-users] How to make a container init DIE after finishing runlevel 0
Michael H. Warfield
mhw at WittsEnd.com
Mon Jan 25 21:32:37 UTC 2010
And here I am replying to myself... Again... :-/
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 16:18 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> > > this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start running
> > > all my services on this setup.
> > >
> > I was wondering if the kernel shouldn't send a signal to the init's
> > parent when sys_reboot is called.
> Which still leaves open the question of telling the difference between a
> halt and a reboot. My trick of using the final runlevel
> in /var/run/utmp ran a foul over a gotcha in the Debian containers that
> they seem to default to mounting tmpfs over /var/run and /var/lock so
> you loose that information. I had to disable "RAMRUN" and "RAMLOCK"
> in /etc/default/rcS in the debian images to get around that but I'm not
> sure I'm happy doing that. The alternative examining /var/log/wtmp
> didn't work out as reliable. OpenVZ has a similar problem and it writes
> a "reboot" file that can be read but that seems inelegant as well. I
> don't think anything works if someone does a "reboot -f" but I need to
> test that condition yet.
And the answer is... "But the dog did nothing in the night."
"Exactly." Neither "halt -f" nor "reboot -f" did a darn thing. The
containers continue to run as if nothing had happened. I guess I should
have expected that.
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com
/\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the lxc-users