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

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 [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: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 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: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • Re: 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: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [SCSI] fix wrong context bugs in SCSI
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
• 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]