v0.11: Revert "fix process termination handling for runc exec" #3757
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit 2f79b14. Signed-off-by: coryb <cbennett@netflix.com>
|
So the changes in this PR were necessary for the tests to pass in 950e06d, I have partially reverted the test case in that PR that require exec handling fixes. |
|
Could you include a quick summary of the issues(s) that would now be reintroduced compared to v0.11.5 that we can include in changelog if we go ahead with the revert. |
|
I updated the description with a summary. |
|
LGTM |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reverts commit 2f79b14.
Regression caused #3751
Summary:
This commit ended up masking rather than solving the original problem, which was unreaped zombie processes caused by cancelling the context for
runc execprocesses initiated via the gateway(*Client).NewContainerapis. More discussion for a proper fix in #3754