[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080409191634.GA25220@vino.hallyn.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:16:34 -0500
From: serge@...lyn.com
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: sukadev@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, serue@...ibm.com,
clg@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace
Quoting H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com):
> sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
>> We want to provide isolation between containers, meaning PTYs in container
>> C1 should not be accessible to processes in C2 (unless C2 is an ancestor).
>
> Yes, I certainly can understand the desire for isolation. That wasn't what
> my question was about.
>
>> The other reason for this in the longer term is for checkpoint/restart.
>> When restarting an application we want to make sure that the PTY indices
>> it was using is available and isolated.
>
> OK, this would be the motivation for index isolation.
>
>> A complete device-namespace could solve this, but IIUC, is being planned
>> in the longer term. We are hoping this would provide the isolation in the
>> near-term without being too intrusive or impeding the implementation of
>> the device namespace.
>
> I'm just worried about the accumulation of what feels like ad hoc
> namespaces, causing a very large combination matrix, a lot of which don't
> make sense.
Hmm, if we were to just call this CLONE_NEWDEV, would that (a) make
sense and (b) suitably address your (certainly valid) concern?
Basically for now CLONE_NEWDEV wouldn't yet be fully implemented, only
unsharing unix98 ptys...
-serge
--
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