On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:20:25PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:34:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > But note that in the longer term we might want even more. We probably > > > want a non-daemonized thread controlled by the user-space. And even > > > more, this thread should be per-namespace (this needs a lot more > > > discussion). > > > > Which namespace? PID namespace I presume where we can have a 'new' init > > task and everything. > > > > I'm not sure, are any of these things (workqueues, userspace helpers) > > pid namespace aware? If not it doesn't seem to make sense to expose this > > to nested PID namespaces and would be something special for the root > > namespace. > > Not sure I understand correctly. But yes, of course, it is not that > call_usermodehelper() should be namespace-friendly "unconditionally". > > We need another API (although perhaps we can simply add UMH_NAMESPACE > flag, this doesn't matter). > > Just for example, the piped core handler. Currently it is hardly useful > in containers.
I'm afraid I'm not much familiar with the entire namespace thing other than broad concepts. But if there's specific per-pid-namespace functionality for usermode-helpers, then yes it makes sense to have per-pid-namespace parents. So in specific, you say that piping a core file into a usermode helper is currently busted in pid-namespaces and that fixing that would indeed introduce such pid-namespace awareness to the usermode-helper stuff? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
