Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:47:08 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: CLONE_NEWUTS documentation |
| |
Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@googlemail.com): > Serge, Eric, > > Below is a patch to document the CLONE_NEWUTS flag that was > added in 2.6.19.
Thanks for writing this.
> Could you please review and let me know of improvements > or inaccuracies? > > By the way, does anyone know where the UTS name in the uname() > API comes from? My best guess is that it's from Unix Timesharing > System, but I don't know this for sure.
That sounds plausible - I've wondered myself and even googled a bit, but not found an answer. I suppose we might need to ask Linus, or check one of the git repos that goes back to the early 90s and see who created the struct.
> Cheers, > > Michael > > diff --git a/man2/clone.2 b/man2/clone.2 > index 7212332..80f9caf 100644 > --- a/man2/clone.2 > +++ b/man2/clone.2 > @@ -341,6 +340,33 @@ configuration option and that the process be privileged > This flag can't be specified in conjunction with > .BR CLONE_THREAD . > .TP > +.BR CLONE_NEWUTS " (since Linux 2.6.19)" > +If > +.B CLONE_NEWUTS > +is set, then create the process in a new UTS namespace.
And the new UTS namespace will initially be identical as the parent - same hostname and domainname.
> +If this flag is not set, then (as with > +.BR fork (2)), > +the process is created in the same UTS namespace as > +the calling process. > +This flag is intended for the implementation of control groups.
I'm not sure Eric was sufficiently clear - this flag is intended for the implementation of virtual server functionality and maybe checkpoint/restart (though I'm not sure any apps will care about being able to reset the hostname on restart :)
It's not that you have to call it 'virtual server functionality', just that 'control groups' is definately not right.
Maybe 'lightweight containers'? "lightweight virtual servers'?
thanks, -serge
| |