linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45EF5A62.8000103@vilain.net>
Date:	Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:35:46 +1300
From:	Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	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!

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.

Sam.
-
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/