This is in the context of containers/toolbox#114
I saw that coreos/toolbox always calls podman stop once the podman exec session terminates. I suppose the idea is that the stop will continue to fail until there are other exec sessions around, and the final stop will actually terminate the container.
But, does it actually work this way in practice?
I was playing with this a bit recently. It seems that regardless of whether there are exec sessions around or not, stop always sends a signal to the container's entry point.
For example, if you have:
$ podman run --rm -it registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:34 /bin/bash
... then a podman stop ... will quit the shell.
Sometimes, when there are actual exec sessions around, I do get this error from podman stop:
"container %s has active exec sessions, refusing to clean up"
... but it doesn't seem consistent. Sometimes the exec sessions also end up getting terminated.
Any thoughts? :)
Is this the expected behaviour? Did Podman change behaviour in some way? Or am I missing something obvious?
This is in the context of containers/toolbox#114
I saw that
coreos/toolboxalways callspodman stoponce thepodman execsession terminates. I suppose the idea is that thestopwill continue to fail until there are otherexecsessions around, and the finalstopwill actually terminate the container.But, does it actually work this way in practice?
I was playing with this a bit recently. It seems that regardless of whether there are
execsessions around or not,stopalways sends a signal to the container's entry point.For example, if you have:
... then a
podman stop ...will quit the shell.Sometimes, when there are actual
execsessions around, I do get this error frompodman stop:... but it doesn't seem consistent. Sometimes the
execsessions also end up getting terminated.Any thoughts? :)
Is this the expected behaviour? Did Podman change behaviour in some way? Or am I missing something obvious?