Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | > clone3() seemed to be the leading contender from what I've read so far. | > Does anyone still object to clone3() after reading the whole thread? | | I object to what clone3() is. The name is not particularly interesting. | | The sanity checks for assigning pids are missing and there is a todo | about it. I am not comfortable with assigning pids to a new process | in a pid namespace with other processes user space processes executing | in it. Could you clarify ? How is the call to alloc_pidmap() from clone3() different from the call from clone() itself ? | | How we handle a clone extension depends critically on if we want to | create a processes for restart in user space or kernel space. | | Could some one give me or point me at a strong case for creating the | processes for restart in user space? There has been a lot of discussion on this with reference to the Checkpoint/Restart patchset. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/13/401 for instance. | | The pid assignment code is currently ugly. I asked that we just pass | in the min max pid pids that already exist into the core pid | assignment function and a constrained min/max that only admits a | single pid when we are allocating a struct pid for restart. That was | not done and now we have a weird abortion with unnecessary special cases. I did post a version of the patch attemptint to implement that. As pointed out in: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/445 we would need more checks in alloc_pidmap() to cover cases like min or max being invalid or min being greater than max or max being greater than pid_max etc. Those checks also made the code ugly (imo). Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
