I see three models: 1) Don't "virtualize" the cgroup path. This is what lmctfy does, though we have discussed changing to: 2) Virtualize to an "administrative root" - I get to tell you where your root is, and you can't see anythign higher than that. 3) Virtualize to CWD root - you can never go up, just down. #1 seems easy, but exposes a lot. #3 is restrictive and fairly easy - could we live with that? #2 seems ideal, but it's not clear to me how to actually implement it. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Victor Marmol <vmarmol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think most of our usecases have only wanted to know about the parent, but > I can see people wanting to go further. Would it be much different to > support both? I feel like it'll be simpler to support all if we go that > route. > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Quoting Tim Hockin (thockin@xxxxxxxxxx): >> > lmctfy literally supports ".." as a container name :) >> >> So is ../.. ever used, or does noone every do anything beyond ..? > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
