Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 12:13 +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > - Should a process have some sort of global (on the machine identifier)?
> yep. otherwise it is imposible to manage (ptrace, kill, ...) it, without 
> introducing new syscalls. 

Why is introducing syscalls so bad?  Does anybody have a list of exactly
how many we would need if we added some kind of container argument?

-- 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/

---

• References:
  • (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization
    • From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 3/5] [pm] Respect the actual device power states in sysfs interface
• Next by Date: Re: Support HDIO_GETGEO on device-mapper volumes
• Previous by thread: Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization
• Next by thread: Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization
• 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]