-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Catch and ignore SIGTERM during update operations #812
Conversation
Copying the comment from #811
This is an interesting point; I was going to say we don't fork subprocesses but in fact we do. |
Since our updates are non-transactional in general, we should at least be robust against some concurrent invocation of e.g. `reboot`. Replaces: coreos#811 Signed-off-by: Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>
Any child processes we fork are not long running, so they don't need their own individual SIGTERM. Doing things this way ensures that when we suppress SIGTERM for our process that's sufficient to ensure the whole unit runs uninterrupted. Signed-off-by: Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>
56de2ef
to
e35436c
Compare
And add comments in both places so we remember to keep them in sync. Signed-off-by: Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>
e35436c
to
c9b7964
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall LGTM
Since our updates are non-transactional in general, we should at least be robust against some concurrent invocation of e.g.
reboot
.Replaces: #811