11.01.2012 21:21, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
Especially what drives that desire not to have it have a /proc/<pid>/sys
directory that reflects the sysctls for a given process.
This is not so important for me, where to access sysctl's. But I'm worrying
about backward compatibility. IOW, I'm afraid of changing path
"/proc/sys/sunprc/*" to "/proc/<pid>/sys/sunrpc". This would break a lot of
user-space programs.
The part that keeps it all working is by adding a symlink from /proc/sys
to /proc/self/sys. That technique has worked well for /proc/net, and I
don't expect there will be any problems with /proc/sys either. It is
possible but is very rare for the introduction of a symlink in a path
to cause problems.
Probably I don't understand you, but as I see it now, symlink to "/proc/self/"
is unacceptable because of the following:
1) will be used current context (any) instead of desired one
(Using the current context is the desirable outcome for existing tools).
1) if CT has other pid namespace - then we just have broken link.
Assuming the process in question is not in the pid namespace available
to proc then yes you will indeed have a broken link. But a broken
link is only a problem for new applications that are doing something strange.
I believe, that container is assuming to work in it's own network and pid
namespaces.
With your approach, if I'm not mistaken, container's /proc/net and /proc/sys
tunables will be unaccessible from parent environment. Or I'm wrong here?
I am proposing treating /proc/sys like /proc/net has already been
treated. Aka move have the version of /proc/sys that relative to a
process be visible at: /proc/<pid>/sys, and with a compat symlink
from /proc/sys -> /proc/self/sys.
Just like has already been done with /proc/net.
1) On one hand it looks logical, that any nested dentries in /proc are tied to
pid namespace. But on the other hand we have a lot of tunables in /proc/net,
/proc/sys, etc. which have nothing with processes or whatever similar.
2) currently /proc processes directories (i.e. /proc/1/, etc) depends on mount
maker context. But /proc/sys and /proc/net doesn't. This looks weird and
despondently, from my pow. What do you think about it?
And what do you think about "conteinerization" of /proc contents in the way like
"sysfs" was done?
Implementing /proc "conteinerization" in this way can give us great flexibility.
For example, /proc/net (and /proc/sys/sunrpc) depends on mount owner net
namespace, /proc/sysvipc depends on mount owner ipc namespace, etc.
And this approach doesn't break backward compatibility as well.
Semantically this should be easy to understand, and about as backwards
compatible as it gets.
Eric
--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
