On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:56PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx): > > I don't like this even more. > > > > Pid namespaces are hierarchical _and_ anonymous, so simply > > set of numbers doesn't describe the final object. > > > > struct pid isn't special, it's just another invariant if you like > > as far as C/R is concerned, but system call is made special wrt pids. > > > > What will be in an image? I hope "struct kstate_image_pid" with several > > Sure pid namespaces are anonymous, but we will give each an 'objref' > valid only for a checkpoint image, and store the relationship between > pid namespaces based on those objrefs. Basically the same way that user > structs and hierarchical user namespaces are handled right now. OK, that's certainly doable. You're commiting yourself to creation of tasks in userspace if this goes in. :-\ Which can let you into putting wrong kind of relations into image. IIRC, clone_flags were in image (still?), but tomorrow kernel will get new way to acquire, say, uts_ns, which, in theory, can't be described by a set of consecutive clones, so, you'll have to fixup something in kernel. > > numbers and with references to such object from other places, so it > > seems natural to do alloc_pid() with needed numbers and that attach new > > shiny pid to where needed. But this clone_pid is only for task_struct's pids. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
