On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 10:41:41AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 8:00 AM Stéphane Graber <stgraber@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:10:15PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This year's edition of the Linux Plumbers Conference will once again > > > have a containers micro-conference but this time around we'll have twice > > > the usual amount of time and will include the content that would > > > traditionally go into the checkpoint/restore micro-conference. > > > > > > LPC2018 will be held in Vancouver, Canada from the 13th to the 15th of > > > November, co-located with the Linux Kernel Summit. > > > > > > > > > We're looking for discussion topics around kernel work related to > > > containers and namespacing, resource control, access control, > > > checkpoint/restore of kernel structures, filesystem/mount handling for > > > containers and any related userspace work. > > > > > > > > > The format of the event will mostly be discussions where someone > > > introduces a given topic/problem and it then gets discussed for 20-30min > > > before moving on to something else. There will also be limited room for > > > short demos of recent work with shorter 15min slots. > > > > > > > > > Details can be found here: > > > > > > https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/containers-micro-conference-at-linux-plumbers-2018/2417 > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to seeing you in Vancouver! > > > > Hello, > > > > We've added an extra week to the CFP, new deadline is Friday 14th of September. > > > > If you were thinking about sending something bug then forgot or just > > missed the deadline, now is your chance to send it! > > > > [cc: overlayfs developers] > > Hi Stéphane! Hey Amir, I'm one of the co-organizers of the microconf. > > I am not planing to travel to LPC this year, so this is more of an FYI than > a CFP, but maybe another overlayfs developer can pick up this glove?? Sure, that would be great. > > For the past two years I have participated in the effort to fix overlayfs > "non-standard" behavior: > https://github.com/amir73il/overlayfs/wiki/Overlayfs-non-standard-behavior Yes, this is an issue that we were aware of for a long time and it something that has made overlayfs somewhat more difficult to use than it should be. > > Allegedly, this effort went underway to improve the experience of overlayfs > users, who are mostly applications running inside containers. For backward > compatibility reasons, container runtimes will need to opt-in for fixing some > of the legacy behavior. > > In reality, I have seen very little cross list interaction between linux-unionfs > and containers mailing lists. The only interaction I recall in the > past two years > ended up in a fix in overlayfs to require opt-in for fixing yet another backward > compatible bad behavior, although docker did follow up shortly after to fix > bad practice in container runtime: > https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/34672 > > So the questions I would like to relay to the micro-conf participants w.r.t the > new opt-in overlayfs behavior: > 1. Did you know? I personally did not know about the new opt-in behavior. More reason to give a talk! :) > 2. Do you care? Yes, we do care. However - speaking as LXC upstream now - we have recently focused on getting shiftfs to work rather than overlayfs. We are more than happy to have a overlayfs talk at the microconf. If someone were to talk about: - What non-standard behavior has already been fixed? - How has it been fixed? - What non-standard behavior still needs to be fixed? - Outstanding problems that either still need a solution or are solved but one would like feedback on the implementation. This way we can have a good discussion. Thanks! Christian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
