Cedric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> So how do you see us enforcing pid1's existance? Somehow keep it from >>> fully exiting, or just kill all the processes in it's namespace if it >>> exits? > > what about a kthread that would be spawned when a task is cloned in an > unshared pid namespace ? This is an extra cost in term of tasks. If you use kernel_thread this can happen. (Die kernel_thread). If you use the kthread interface keventd will be the parent process and we won't have problems. Thus most users of kernel_thread need to be fixed to use the kthread interface. Thanks for the reminder of this one, I had forgotten that bit of reasoning for updating kernel_thread users. >> Killing all other processes in the namespace when pid1 exits is what >> I implemented last time around. > > this looks like a sane thing to do. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
