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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:35:46 +1300
From:	Sam Vilain <>
To:	Paul Menage <>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on
 top of nsproxy!

Paul Menage wrote:
>> In the namespace world when we say container we mean roughly at the level
>> of nsproxy and container_group.
> So you're saying that a task can only be in a single system-wide container.

Nope, we didn't make the mistake of nailing down what a "container" was
too far before it is implemented.  We talked before about
containers-within-containers because, inevitably if you provide a
feature you'll end up having to deal with virtualising systems that in
turn use that feature.

> My patch provides multiple potentially-independent ways of dividing up
> the tasks on the system - if the "container" is the set of all
> divisions that the process is in, what's an appropriate term for the
> sub-units?

namespace, since 2.4.x

> That assumes the viewpoint that your terminology is "correct" and
> other people's needs "fixing". :-)

Absolutely.  Please respect the semantics established so far; changing
them adds nothing at the cost of much confusion.

> But as I've said I'm not particularly wedded to the term "container"
> if that really turned out to be what's blocking acceptance from people
> like Andrew or Linus. Do you have a suggestion for a better name? To
> me, "process container" seems like the ideal name, since it's an
> abstraction that "contains" processes and associates them with some
> (subsystem-provided) state.

It's not even really the term, it's the semantics.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists