Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "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. > Well, I don't do that for the moment, but I was planning to use the namespace id. -- Daniel
