On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 16:03 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2006-01-17 at 09:56 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > The virtual pid is different depending on who is asking. So simply
> > storing current->realpid and current->pid isn't helpful, as we would
> > still need to call a function when a pid crosses user->kernel boundary.
>
> This is an obscure, weird piece of functionality for some special case
> usages most of which are going to be eliminated by Xen. I don't see the
> kernel side justification for it at all.
At least OpenVZ and vserver want very similar functionality. They're
both working with out-of-tree patch sets. We each want to do subtly
different things with tsk->pid, and task_pid() seemed to be a decent
place to start. OpenVZ has a very similar concept in its pid_task()
function.
Arjan had a very good point last time we posted these: we should
consider getting rid of as many places in the kernel where pids are used
to uniquely identify tasks, and just stick with task_struct pointers.
> Maybe you should remap it the other side of the user->kernel boundary ?
We would very much like to run unmodified applications and libraries.
Doing it in a patched libc is certainly a possibility, but it wouldn't
make any future customers very happy.
I also wonder if RedHat or SUSE would ever ship and support a special
set of libraries for us. Oh, and there are always statically linked
apps... :)
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
