Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: question: pid space semantics. | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:21:25 -0700 |
| |
Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 11:43 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> The question: >> If we could add additional pid values in different pid spaces to a >> process with a syscall upon demand would that lead to an >> implementation everyone could use? > > So, you'd basically only allocate the cross-namespace pids when you > needed to do some kind of cross-namespace management?
Yes, or setup a parent/child relationship. So I think the first process in a container would always get two pids.
> pid_t alloc_local_pid(container_handle, pid_t pid_inside_container)
That is the idea.
I actually expect the implementation to look very much different. To me the nice piece of this concept is that it allows all pids to local to a pid space while still be able to talk to remote processes.
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/
| |