"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm at xmission.com): > > Now now, it's not being silently added, it was a very clearly commented > part of a proposed patchset sent to all interested parties for review, > and now being argued over. Sounds kosher to me. Yes. I guess the part that was moderately silent was the fact that it was intended to be exported to user space. If you couldn't see the implication that part was not explicit. But I do agree that I missed this patch in the first round of review, and my apologies for that. > I think the problem is that some people wnat to see an answer to the > namespace entering problem right now, but the alternate solution ased on > using pids as implicit identifiers can't be used until the pidspaces are > fully implemented. I agree with that and that is a worthy discussion. One of the reasons I'm not too concerned is that sys_ptrace completely solves that problem today. The syscall interface completely sucks for handling that case but it works. The one instance where we clearly need a way to talk about namespaces besides enter is for moving network interfaces between network namespaces and I haven't looked close yet but I don't think either Dmitry or Daniel in their network namespace patches was using this id. Eric