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  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:	Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:42:05 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Sam Vilain" <sam@...ain.net>
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!

On 3/7/07, Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, my aproach allows containers hierarchically as children of other
containers too.

>
> > 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 "namespace" has well-established historical semantics too - a way
of changing the mappings of local names to global objects. This
doesn't describe things liek resource controllers, cpusets, resource
monitoring, etc.

Trying to extend the well-known term namespace to refer to things that
aren't namespaces isn't a useful approach, IMO.

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