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

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

> > Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > So it seems the clone( flags ) is a reasonable approach to create new
> > namespaces. Question is what is the initial state of each namespace?
> > In pidspace we know we should be creating an empty pidmap !
> > In network, someone suggested creating a loopback device
> > In uts, create "localhost"
> > Are there examples where we rather inherit ?  Filesystem ?
> Of course filesystem is already implemented, and does inheret a full
> copy.

why do we want to use clone()? Just because of its name and flags?
I think it is really strange to fork() to create network context. What 
has process creation has to do with it?

After all these clone()'s are called, some management actions from host 
system are still required, to add these IPs/routings/etc.
So? Why mess it up? Why not create a separate clean interface for 
container management?

Kirill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/