Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx): > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Cedric Le Goater wrote: > >>>> > >>> I suggest "newinstance", but "newns" works, too. > >> > >> Could we also use this mount option to 'unshare' a new posix message > >> queue namespace ? > > > > Sorry, I fail to see the connection with devpts here? Are you > > suggesting using the same option for another filesystem (if so, which)? > > yes. the posix message queues are also using a single superblock filesystem. > > If we want isolate them (for container needs for example), we also need to > create a new sb. The patchset I have uses a clone flag but using a mount > 'newns' really sounds like a better idea. > > C. Yup, that sounds like a good reason to just use 'newns'. Now the difference with mq is that you have syscalls like mq_open which need to 'just know' which mqns to use. However, Nadia had just started looking at this and I think she was considering tagging the mounts namespace, which just may make sense. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
