Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>> hmm, that's rather complex, because we have to take into account the
>>> kernel stack, no ? This is what Andrey was trying to solve in his patchset
>>> back in September :
>>>
>>>
Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>> the self checkpoint and self restore syscalls, like Oren is proposing, are
>>> simpler but they require the process cooperation to be triggered. we could
>>> image doing that in a special signal handler which would allow us to jump
>>> in the right task context.
>> T
Quoting H. Peter Anvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Looks good. In the very last part, you might say just a little more to
>> make sure it's clear: You want to mount -o newinstance before sshd
>> or gnome is started in the root container, so that a child container
>> can't rea
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Looks good. In the very last part, you might say just a little more to
> make sure it's clear: You want to mount -o newinstance before sshd
> or gnome is started in the root container, so that a child container
> can't reach your devpts by doing a mount -t devpts without
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> >From c4596977ca34b9664d97efa8681e6711145a22cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PATCH 9/9] Document usage of multiple-instances of devpts
>
> Changelog [v2]:
> - Add note indicating strict
В Срд, 15/10/2008 в 19:46 +0400, Denis V. Lunev пишет:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:15 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Втр, 14/10/2008 в 11:51 +0400, Denis V. Lunev пишет:
> > > On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:08 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > > > venet0 is peer-to-peer device. Why openvz scripts
> > > > s
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:15 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Втр, 14/10/2008 в 11:51 +0400, Denis V. Lunev пишет:
> > On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:08 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > > venet0 is peer-to-peer device. Why openvz scripts
> > > set some $FAKEGATEWAYNET network on p2p device and then put nonexi
>> the self checkpoint and self restore syscalls, like Oren is proposing, are
>> simpler but they require the process cooperation to be triggered. we could
>> image doing that in a special signal handler which would allow us to jump
>> in the right task context.
>
> This description is not accur
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> hmm, that's rather complex, because we have to take into account the
>> kernel stack, no ? This is what Andrey was trying to solve in his patchset
>> back in September :
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/3/
