Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.

Quoting Herbert Poetzl ([email protected]):
> > 3) How do we refer to namespaces and containers when we are not members?
> >    - Do we refer to them indirectly by processes or other objects that
> >      we can see and are members?
> 
> the process will be an unique identifier to the 
> namespace, but it might not be easy to use it, so
> IMHO it might at least make sense to ...

Especially from userspace.  If I want to start a checkpoint on a
container, but I have to use the process to identify the
container/namespace, well I can't uniquely specify the process by pid
anymore...

-serge
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Sam Vilain <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
• Next by Date: Re: FYI: RAID5 unusably unstable through 2.6.14
• Previous by thread: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
• Next by thread: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]