Hi Dan, Two comments: 1. We already tried a similar approach over a year ago - selecting pids using a /proc interface instead of a dedicated syscall - and received chilling reactions. (IIRC posted by Nadia Derbey). 2. What do you expect to gain by splitting the work into two separate system calls ? Oren. Dan Smith wrote: > This proposed simpler interface builds on all the real work done by Suka's > early patches in his clone3() set. Instead of passing in the pids we want > in the clone3() call itself, this interface lets us build that list ahead > of time, to be used on the next regular clone(). > > Some points about the implementation: > - The first call to choosepid() allocates a pid_t array on current > - All pids in that list start as zero, which do_fork_with_pids treats as > undefined > - A call to clone() or exec() always clears the current set of next pids > - This was Serge's idea, based on a permutation of Daniel Lezcano's > cloneat() suggestion > - This is based on all Suka's hard work, with a trivial change to the > do_fork_with_pids() function to eliminate the copy_from_user() of the > pid_t list > > Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> [...] _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
