Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:47:53PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Actually, I think the alternative you propose just here is better. I
>> imagine there are times when one will want to create multiple
>> namespaces with a single call to clone3(), including a time namespace.
>> I think this should be allowed by the API. And, otherwise, clone3()
>> becomes something of a second-class citizen for creating namespaces.
>> (I don't really get the "less invasive" argument. Implementing this is
>> just a piece of kernel to code to make user-space's life a bit simpler
>> and more consistent.)
>
> I don't particularly mind either way. If there's actual users that need
> to set it at clone3() time then we can extend it. So I'd like to hear
> what Adrian, Dmitry, and Thomas think since they are well-versed how
> this will be used in the wild. I'm weary of exposing a whole new uapi
> struct and extending clone3() without any real use-case but I'm happy to
> if there is!
I really have no clue. I merily helped getting this in shape without
creating havoc for timekeeping and VDSO. I have to punt to the container
wizards.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
