Mike Waychison <mikew@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> Dan Smith wrote: >>> SH> (Note that in Dan's next version, he did move unshare into >>> SH> userspace) >>> >>> The idealist in me still wants it to be in the kernel. However, after >>> seeing it done I agree that it's the right thing to do, at least in >>> this case. >> >> I would say in all cases. >> >> as you can't unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), > > Eric, > > Is there a particular reason the above doesn't work? I made an attempt to > implement it a while back, but haven't convinced myself that signals and > re-attaching a new struct pid to a running task is correct. Last time I was thinking about this I figured unsharing a pid namespace would simply place it's children in a different pid namespace, not the originating process. Would that semantic be useful? It would certainly be a lot less effort than changing the pid on a running process correctly. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
