Quoting H. Peter Anvin (hpa@xxxxxxxxx): > 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. Hmm, if we were to just call this CLONE_NEWDEV, would that (a) make sense and (b) suitably address your (certainly valid) concern? Basically for now CLONE_NEWDEV wouldn't yet be fully implemented, only unsharing unix98 ptys... -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
