Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Cedric Le Goater (legoater@xxxxxxx): >>> No, what you're suggesting does not suffice. >> probably. I'm still trying to understand what you mean below :) >> >> Man, I hate these hierarchicals pid_ns. one level would have been enough, >> just one vpid attribute in 'struct pid*' > > Well I don't mind - temporarily - saying that nested pid namespaces > are not checkpointable. It's just that if we're going to need a new > syscall anyway, then why not go ahead and address the whole problem? > It's not hugely more complicated, and seems worth it. yes. agree. there's a thread going on that topic. i'm following it. [ ... ] >> anyway, I think that some CLONE_NEW* should be forbidden. Daniel should >> send soon a little patch for the ns_cgroup restricting the clone flags >> being used in a container. > > Uh, that feels a bit over the top. We want to make this > uncheckpointable (if it remains so), not prevent the whole action. > After all I may be running a container which I don't plan on ever > checkpointing, and inside that container running a job which i do > want to migrate. ok. i've been scanning the emails a bit fast. that would be fine and useful. > So depending on if we're doing the Dave or the rest-of-the-world > way :), we either clear_bit(pidns->may_checkpoint) on the parent > pid_ns when a child is created, or we walk every task being > checkpointed and make sure they each are in the same pid_ns. > Doesn't that suffice? yes. this 'may_checkpoint' is a container level info so I wonder where you store it. in a cgroup_checkpoint ? sorry for jumping in and may be restarting some old topics of discussion. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
