Re: runit SIGPWR support

From: Colin Booth <>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:54:27 +0000

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:56PM +0300, innerspacepilot wrote:
> Why not just make runit systems run inside containers out of the box?
> We are talking about one/two lines of code.
> Why can't we be just a little bit more friendly to each other?
> Thanks.
I wasn't trying to be hostile, apologies if it came across that way. As
far as I know SIGPWR is a Linux-specific signal so services that are
aiming for portability will either need to have special handling for
that in the linux case or need to ignore it. Ergo, runit (and all other
POSIX-compliant inits) currently have no special handling around SIGPWR
as they don't understand what it is.

Is this the right behavior? I don't know. Something like SIGPWR as an
alerting mechanism when you're switched to UPS battery is pretty nice in
a general case but using that as your container shutdown solution
isolates you into a very SysV-specific world. Overriding the default via
lxc.signal.halt will allow you to modify what you send to something that
is within the POSIX spec and allow you to trigger shutdowns the "right"
way. It's a little lame but it is portable, and LXC using a non-portable
signal is a little bit of a bummer.

Colin Booth
Received on Wed Feb 12 2020 - 21:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC