Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Dave Hansen wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 16:36 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: >>> I second the concern of running out of 64 bits of flags. In fact, the >>> problem with the flags is likely to be valid outside our context, and >>> general to the linux kernel soon. Should we not discuss it there >>> too ? >> It would be pretty easy to make a new one expandable: >> >> sys_newclone(int len, unsigned long *flags_array) >> >> Then you could give it a virtually unlimited number of "unsigned long"s >> pointed to by "flags_array". >> >> Plus, the old clone just becomes: >> >> sys_oldclone(unsigned long flags) >> { >> do_newclone(1, &flags); >> } >> >> We could validate the flags array address in sys_newclone(), then call >> do_newclone(). > > Hmm. I have an idea how to make this w/o a new system call. This might > look wierd, but. Why not stopple the last bit with a CLONE_NEWCLONE and > consider the parent_tidptr/child_tidptr in this case as the pointer to > an array of extra arguments/flargs?
It's a bit hacky but it looks like a good idea to me ! Shall we use parent_tidptr or child_tidptr to pass a extended array of flags only ? if we could pass the pid of the task to be cloned, it would be useful for c/r. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel