Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > Serge, Eric, > > Below is a patch to document the CLONE_NEWUTS flag that was > added in 2.6.19. Thanks for writing this. > Could you please review and let me know of improvements > or inaccuracies? > > By the way, does anyone know where the UTS name in the uname() > API comes from? My best guess is that it's from Unix Timesharing > System, but I don't know this for sure. That sounds plausible - I've wondered myself and even googled a bit, but not found an answer. I suppose we might need to ask Linus, or check one of the git repos that goes back to the early 90s and see who created the struct. > Cheers, > > Michael > > diff --git a/man2/clone.2 b/man2/clone.2 > index 7212332..80f9caf 100644 > --- a/man2/clone.2 > +++ b/man2/clone.2 > @@ -341,6 +340,33 @@ configuration option and that the process be privileged > This flag can't be specified in conjunction with > .BR CLONE_THREAD . > .TP > +.BR CLONE_NEWUTS " (since Linux 2.6.19)" > +If > +.B CLONE_NEWUTS > +is set, then create the process in a new UTS namespace. And the new UTS namespace will initially be identical as the parent - same hostname and domainname. > +If this flag is not set, then (as with > +.BR fork (2)), > +the process is created in the same UTS namespace as > +the calling process. > +This flag is intended for the implementation of control groups. I'm not sure Eric was sufficiently clear - this flag is intended for the implementation of virtual server functionality and maybe checkpoint/restart (though I'm not sure any apps will care about being able to reset the hostname on restart :) It's not that you have to call it 'virtual server functionality', just that 'control groups' is definately not right. Maybe 'lightweight containers'? "lightweight virtual servers'? thanks, -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
