Dan Smith wrote: > OL> Ahh.. and forgot to ask/mention: you do need to call > OL> sock_unix_unlink() before attempting bind(), for the reasons we > OL> had discussed earlier (consider same example as above, > OL> checkpoint/restart done before the unlink(), then restart will > OL> otherwise fail). > > I thought we agreed that was userspace's job? That's why I didn't > unlink() before bind() in this version (4) of the patch either. > I don't recall such a conclusion. I argued that it it's kernel's job. I suppose we agree that such pathnames should always be unlinked - so it isn't policy based. Therefore, I don't see a good reason to have userspace scan the checkpoint image data just to find such sockets and make them disappear ... Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
