Eric W. Biederman 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. that's not a violent agreement :) i'll work on it. thanks, C.
