| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6599ad830703070946s1c6c0535oadff0a109731a4f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:46:35 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> Cc: "Srivatsa Vaddagiri" <vatsa@...ibm.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com, sam@...ain.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pj@....com, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru, containers@...ts.osdl.org, winget@...gle.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! On 3/7/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote: > Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@...ibm.com): > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:32:07PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > > I'm not really sure that I see the value of having this be part of > > > nsproxy rather than the previous independent container (and > > > container_group) structure. > > > > *shrug* > > > > I wrote the patch mainly to see whether the stuff container folks (Sam Vilain > > et al) were complaining abt (that container structure abstraction > > inside the kernel is redundant/unnecessary) made sense or not. > > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation. No, Sam was saying that nsproxy should be the object that all resource controllers hook off. Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists