Cedric Le Goater <clg at fr.ibm.com> writes: > Hello All, > > Eric, in your initial proof of concept on the pid namespace, you were > defining a child_reaper per pid namespace. > > IMO, we can't use init_task as a child_reaper in a pid namespace because we > will have pid collision which might result in a breakage of the init_task. The kernel doesn't use init_task (The idle thread) once it starts init. Reaping children is the job of pid == 1. > Here are some questions on the model you intended to follow : > > Do you think we should have a child_reaper task per container ? We have an init per container so yes. > Could we use a kthread to do the job ? Definitely not. > Could that kthread be global to all pid namespace ? Makes no sense. > Any completely different idea on the topic ? Init reaps the children, and I believe there are parts of user space that depend on this. We shouldn't change that semantic. Eric
