[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B8D0E2E.6020205@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:10:06 +0100
From: Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Netfilter Development Mailinglist
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ns: Syscalls for better namespace sharing control.
On 03/01/2010 10:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I am of two mind about my patches. Right now they are a brilliant
> proof of concept that we can name namespaces without needing a
> namespace for the names of namespaces, and start to be a practical
> solution to the join problem. At the same time, I'm not certain
> I like a solution that requires yet more syscalls so I ask myself
> is there not yet a simpler way.
thinking aloud,
what if you made the nsproxy a vfs_inode ? we could then mount the nsfs
to do all sorts of fs operations on the object, like notifying easily
its deletion. we would need to find a meaningful name, probably the inode
number.
one syscall (nsfd) would be required to get the nsproxy of a task (pid).
you can't guess that from an inode number.
C.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists