On 6/8/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do fear that that could become a maintenance nightmare. For instance right now there's the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). Other such hooks might be placed at vfs_mkdir, which we'd then likely want to have placed in our container_mkdir() and container_clone() fns. And of course may_create() is static inline in fs/namei.c. It's trivial, but still if it changes we'd want to change the version in kernel/container.c as well.
Do we need to actually need to respect may_create() in container_clone()? I guess it would provide a way for root to control which processes could unshare namespaces.
What would be the main advantage of doing it this way? Do you consider the extra subys->auto_setup() hook to be avoidable bloat?
I was thinking that it would be nice to be able to atomically set up the resources in the new container at the point when it's created rather than later. But I guess this way can work too. Can we call it something like "clone()" rather than "auto_setup()"? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
