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

Quoting Hubertus Franke ([email protected]):
> IMHO, there is only a need to refer to a namespace from the global context.
> Since one will be moving into a new container, but getting out of one
> could be prohibitive (e.g. after migration)
> It does not make sense therefore to know the name of a namespace in
> a different container.

Not sure I agree.  What if we are using a private namespace for a
vserver, and then we want to create a private namespace in there for a
mobile application.  Since we're talking about nested namespaces, this
should be possible.

Now I believe Eric's code so far would make it so that you can only
refer to a namespace from it's *creating* context.  Still restrictive,
but seems acceptable.

(right?)

-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: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
  • 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]>

• Prev by Date: Re: How in tarnation do I git v2.6.16-rc2? hg died and I still don't git git
• Next by Date: Re: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day...
• 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]