> No, what you're suggesting does not suffice. probably. I'm still trying to understand what you mean below :) Man, I hate these hierarchicals pid_ns. one level would have been enough, just one vpid attribute in 'struct pid*' > Call > (5591,3,1) the task knows as 5591 in the init_pid_ns, 3 in a child pid > ns, and 1 in grandchild pid_ns created from there. Now assume we are > checkpointing tasks T1=(5592,1), and T2=(5594,3,1). > > We don't care about the first number in the tuples, so they will be > random numbers after the recreate. yes. > But we do care about the second numbers. yes very much and we need a way set these numbers in alloc_pid() > But specifying CLONE_NEWPID while recreating the process tree > in userspace does not allow you to specify the 3 in (5594,3,1). I haven't looked closely at hierarchical pid namespaces but as we're using a an array of pid indexed but the pidns level, i don't see why it shouldn't be possible. you might be right. anyway, I think that some CLONE_NEW* should be forbidden. Daniel should send soon a little patch for the ns_cgroup restricting the clone flags being used in a container. Cheers, C. > Or are you suggesting that you'll do a dummy clone of (5594,2) so that > the next clone(CLONE_NEWPID) will be expected to be (5594,3,1)? > > -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
