sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > We want to provide isolation between containers, meaning PTYs in container > C1 should not be accessible to processes in C2 (unless C2 is an ancestor). Yes, I certainly can understand the desire for isolation. That wasn't what my question was about. > The other reason for this in the longer term is for checkpoint/restart. > When restarting an application we want to make sure that the PTY indices > it was using is available and isolated. OK, this would be the motivation for index isolation. > A complete device-namespace could solve this, but IIUC, is being planned > in the longer term. We are hoping this would provide the isolation in the > near-term without being too intrusive or impeding the implementation of > the device namespace. I'm just worried about the accumulation of what feels like ad hoc namespaces, causing a very large combination matrix, a lot of which don't make sense. -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
