On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:46:59 -0600 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:04:08 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > be happy to hear if someone has a better idea. > >> > >> There is a difference between "complete the feature" and "early adopters > >> to start playing with the feature" on the one side, and making something > >> available in a released kernel on the other side. > >> > >> For development and playing with it it can depend on BROKEN (perhaps > >> with the dependency removed through the first -rc kernels), but as soon > >> as it's available in a -final kernel the ABI is fixed. > >> > > > > Yes, if we're not 100% certain that the interfaces are correnct and unchanging > > and that the implementation is solid, we should disable the feature at Kconfig > > time. > > Reasonable. So far things look good for a single pid namespace. Multiple > pid namespaces look iffy. > > > The best option would be to fix things asap. But assuming that option isn't > > reasonable and/or safe, we can slip a `depends on BROKEN' into -rc6 then > > resume development for 2.6.25. > > I think we can make a lot of progress but there is enough development > yet to do to reach the target of correct and unchanging interfaces, > with a solid interface. That unless we achieve a breakthrough I > don't see us achieving that target for 2.6.24. > > The outstanding issues I can think of off the top of my head: > - signal handling for init on secondary pid namespaces. > - Properly setting si_pid on signals that cross namespaces. > - The kthread API conversion so we don't get kernel threads > trapped in pid namespaces and make them unfreeable. > - At fork time I think we are doing a little bit too much work > in setting the session and the pgrp, and removing the controlling > tty. > - AF_unix domain credential passing. > - misc pid vs vpid sorting out (autofs autofs4, coda, arch specific > syscalls, others?) > - Removal of task->pid, task->tgid, task->signal->__pgrp, > tsk->signal->__session or some other way to ensure that we have > touched and converted all of the kernel pid handling. > - flock pid handling. Given that a lot of this development will hopefully happen over the next two months, ... > It hurts me to even ponder what thinking makes it that > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL isn't enough to keep a stable distro > from shipping the code in their stable kernel, and locking us into > trouble. > > With that said. I think I should just respin the patchset now and add > the "depends on BROKEN". it doesn't make sense to make it all dependent upon BROKEN now. Better would be to make it dependant upon CONFIG_SOMETHING_ELSE now, which depends upon EXPERIMENTAL and which will, around -rc6, be changed to depend upon BROKEN. If that makes sense. It's all a bit unusual and complex, but this is an exceptional set of features - let's hang in there. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers