Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Sukadev Bhattiprolu [suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] wrote: > | Oren Laadan [or...@cs.columbia.edu] wrote: > > I am not sure what the semantics should be for this case: > > - checkpoint a process that is in level-3 pid namespace > - restart in a level-2 or level-1 pid namespace >
Meaning: a container root was at level-3, so tasks in the container were level-3 through level-(3+N), where N is the in-container depth so to speak. Then it was restarted such that the base became level-2 or level-1. I think we already covered this. > clone_with_pids() will fail now since number of pids specified would > be 4 but kernel expects only 2 or 3. mktree/restart program cannot > figure out current nesting to trim the target-pids. > > Should we remove the check of user-pids exceeding the current nesting > level and simply ignore the pids from the older namespaces ? It seems to me that the current behavior is correct: I can't think of a case where trimming (silently) would make sense, or where a program would end up giving more pids that it's nesting level. Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
