Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Thanks. What's the problem with setns? >> >> joining a preexisting namespace is roughly the same problem as >> unsharing a namespace. We simply haven't figure out how to do it >> safely for the pid and the uid namespaces. > > The pid may change after this for sure. What problems do you know > about it? What if we try to allocate the same PID in a new space > or return -EBUSY? This will be a good starting point. If we manage > to fix it later this will not break the API at all. Parentage. The pid is the identity of a process and all kinds of things make assumptions in all kinds of strange places. I don't see how waitpid can work if you change the pid. glibc doesn't cope if you change someones pid. >> Definitely. I only consider the current interface to be a mushy not >> set in stone. > > OK. The interface is good. I just don't want you to send it for an inclusion > until we decide what to do with waiting. Sure. I am get a jump on 2.6.35 not aiming for inclusion this merge window. There is plenty of time. > > Poll is OK with me. As far as the notification is concerned - that's also > done in OpenVZ. If you are OK to wait for a week or two I can do it for net > namespaces. Seems reasonable. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
