lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: question: pid space semantics.
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-14 21:25    [W:0.060 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site