Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Fri, 19 May 2006 10:27:32 -0600 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote: >> >> let me >> give a simple example here: > > Examples are useful. > >> "pid virtualization" >> >> - Linux-VServer doesn't really need that right now. >> we are perfectly fine with "pid isolation" here, we >> only "virtualize" the init pid to make pstree happy >> >> - Snapshot/Restart and Migration will require "full" >> pid virtualization (that's where Eric and OpenVZ >> are heading towards) > > snapshot/restart/migration worry me. If they require complete > serialisation of complex kernel data structures then we have a problem, > because it means that any time anyone changes such a structure they need to > update (and test) the serialisation.
There is a strict limit to what is user visible, and if it isn't user visible we will never need it in a checkpoint. So internal implementation details should not matter.
> This may be a show-stopper, in which case maybe we only need to virtualise > pid #1.
Except we do need something for pid isolation, and a pid namespace is quite possibly the light weight solution. If you can't see the pid it is clearly isolated from you.
> Anyway. Thanks, guys. It sound like most of this work will be nicely > separable so we can think about each bit as it comes along.
Yes, and there are enough issues it is significant.
Eric - 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/
| |