Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@free.fr> writes: > I agree with all the points you and Pavel you talked about but I don't feel > comfortable to have the current process to switch the pid namespace because of > the process tree hierarchy (what will be the parent of the process when you > enter the pid namespace for example). What is the difference with the > sys_bindns > or the sys_hijack, proposed a couple of years ago ?
I think what has changed is: - We have mostly completed most of the namespace work. - We have operational experience with the current namespaces. - We have people not in the core containers group feeling the pain of not having some of these features. So I think we are at point where we can perhaps talk about these things and finally solve some of these issues. Clearly how to enter a container is on your and Pavel's mind as big concerns. I am aiming a little lower. I am of two mind about my patches. Right now they are a brilliant proof of concept that we can name namespaces without needing a namespace for the names of namespaces, and start to be a practical solution to the join problem. At the same time, I'm not certain I like a solution that requires yet more syscalls so I ask myself is there not yet a simpler way. Hopefully we can resolve something before the next merge window. Eric _______________________________________________ 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
