Herbert Poetzl wrote: [ ... ] > as I said, I'd opt for having a new clone() syscall in > addition to the existing one, with a separate 64bit > set of flags to decide what namespaces should be created > or cloned. there is no problem with putting 'important' > or generally 'useful' flags (like for example for pid, > uts or lightweight network isolation) into the existing > clone call (will require a simple mapping if done properly) > so that they can be used with 'older' libc interfaces too > > I know, it would be 'nice' to keep the existing clone() > interface, but I think it already has become a complication > we should avoid (and we have not even used up all the > available flags :) agree and so does Kirill. > are there any strong arguments against having a new > clone() syscall, which I was missing so far? I don't see any. I'm going to revive execns() syscall into a clone_ns() syscall as suggested by Kirill and you. Then, others will be free to nack ;) Thanks, C.
