Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 06:55:21 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] nsproxy: Introduce nsproxy |
| |
Quoting Al Viro (viro@ftp.linux.org.uk): > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:11:29PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Introduce the nsproxy struct. Doesn't do anything yet, but has it's > > own lifecycle pretty much mirrorring the fs namespace. > > > > Subsequent patches will move the namespace struct into the nsproxy. > > Then as more namespaces are introduced, such as utsname, they can > > be added to the nsproxy as well. > > Is there any reason why those can't be simply part of namespace? I.e. > be carried by the stuff mounted in standard places...
The argument has been that it is desirable to be able to unshare these namespaces - uid, pid, network, sysv, utsname, fs-namespace - separately. Are you talking about having these all be part of a single namespace unshared all at once (and stored in struct namespace)? Or am I misunderstandimg you entirely?
Andi Kleen (I believe) thinks it should be like that, all or nothing. I think Herbert Poetzl had current examples where vserver is used to unshare just pieces, i.e. apache unsharing network but sharing global pidspace.
thanks, -serge - 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/
| |