On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:10 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): > > On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 14:03 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting ntl@xxxxxxxxx (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): > > > > Only a pid namespace init task - the child process produced by a call > > > > to clone(2) with CLONE_NEWPID - is allowed to call these. The state > > > > > > So you make this useful for your cases by only using this with > > > application containers - created using lxc-execute, or, more precisely, > > > using lxc-init as the container's init. So a container running a stock > > > distro can't be checkpointed. > > > > Correct, a conventional distro init won't work, and application > > containers are my focus for now, at least. > > > > > > > Is this just to keep the patch simple for now, or is there some reason > > > to keep this limitation in place? > > > > I guess you're asking whether non-pid-init processes could be allowed to > > use the syscalls? > > No. I'm asking whether you are intending to later on change the checkpoint > API to allow an external task to checkpoint a pid-init process, rather than > the pid-init process having to initiate it itself. No, that is not the intention. I can see how that would be problematic for those wanting to run minimally-modified distro containers, but I think running a patched pid-init is a reasonable tradeoff to ask users to make in order to get c/r. And there's nothing to keep the standard distro inits from growing c/r capability. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
