Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > Dave Hansen <hansendc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:51 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Outlive is the wrong concept. Ideally we want something that will > >> live as long as there are processes in the pid_ns. > > > > How about they just live as long as there is a mount? Now that we _can_ > > have multiple superblocks and meaningful vfsmounts, I think it's time to > > make it act like a normal filesystem. > > Agreed. > > My concern is that the mount will outlive the pid namespace. In which > case we need something that is safe to test when the pid namespace goes > away. Offhand I would assume the mount would get a reference to the pidns. pidns may be empty, but would exist. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers