Cedric Le Goater <clg at fr.ibm.com> writes: > 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 ;) I think it is silly, but I see not real problems with the idea. Eric
