On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:07:11PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > I'm curious how you see these fitting in with the work that we've been > doing with Oren. Do you mean to just start a discussion or are you > really proposing these as an alternative to what Oren has been posting? Yes, this is posted as alternative. Some design decisions are seen as incorrect from here like: * not rejecting checkpoint with possible "leaks" from container * not having CAP_SYS_ADMIN on restart(2) * having small (TASK_COMM_LEN) and bigger (objref[1]) image format misdesigns. * doing fork(2)+restart(2) per restarted task and whole orchestration done from userspace/future init task. * not seeing bigger picture (note, this is not equivalent to supporting everything at once, nobody is asking for everything at once) wrt shared objects and format and code changes because of that (note again, image format will change, but it's easy to design high level structure which won't change) * checking of unsupported features done at wrong place and wrong time and runtime overhead because of that on CR=y kernels. There are also low-level things, but it's cumulative effect. [1] Do I inderstand correctly that cookie for shared object is an address on kernel stack? This is obviously unreliable, if yes :-) int objref; ... /* adding 'file' to the hash will keep a reference to it */ new = cr_obj_add_ptr(ctx, file, &objref, CR_OBJ_FILE, 0); ^^^^^^^ _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
