Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:13:41 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers |
| |
On 6/8/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I do fear that that could become a maintenance nightmare. For instance > right now there's the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). Other such hooks might > be placed at vfs_mkdir, which we'd then likely want to have placed in > our container_mkdir() and container_clone() fns. And of course > may_create() is static inline in fs/namei.c. It's trivial, but still if > it changes we'd want to change the version in kernel/container.c as > well.
Do we need to actually need to respect may_create() in container_clone()? I guess it would provide a way for root to control which processes could unshare namespaces.
> > What would be the main advantage of doing it this way? Do you consider > the extra subys->auto_setup() hook to be avoidable bloat? >
I was thinking that it would be nice to be able to atomically set up the resources in the new container at the point when it's created rather than later. But I guess this way can work too. Can we call it something like "clone()" rather than "auto_setup()"?
Paul - 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/
| |