lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Herbert Poetzl (herbert@13thfloor.at):
>
>>>3) How do we refer to namespaces and containers when we are not members?
>>> - Do we refer to them indirectly by processes or other objects that
>>> we can see and are members?
>>
>>the process will be an unique identifier to the
>>namespace, but it might not be easy to use it, so
>>IMHO it might at least make sense to ...
>
>
> Especially from userspace. If I want to start a checkpoint on a
> container, but I have to use the process to identify the
> container/namespace, well I can't uniquely specify the process by pid
> anymore...
>
> -serge
>

Well we first can agree that througout all processes/tasks of a container
the namespaces used are the same.
Hence looking at the init_task of each container is sufficient.

Restricting visibility to the default container makes sense to me,
because one is not supposed to be able to look into another container.

However, in the global context we do have pid that we can use.

-- Hubertus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-08 15:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site