Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> 3. Cleaner logic for namespace migration: with this approach > >> one need to save the virtual pid and let global one change; > >> with Suka's logic this is not clear how to migrate the level > >> 2 namespace (concerning init to be level 0). > > > > This is a very good point. > > > > How *would* we migrate the pids at the second level? > > As long as you don't try and restore pids into the initial pid namespace > it isn't a problem. You just record the pid hierarchy and the pid > for a task in that hierarchy. There really is nothing special going on > that should make migration hard. > > Or did I miss something? Hmm, no, i guess you are right. I was thinking that getting the pid for a process woudl be done purely from userspace, but I guess along with a kernel helper to *set* pids, we could also have a kernel helper to get all pids for all pid namespaces "above" that of the process doing the checkpoint. Makes sense. thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
