Quoting Al Viro ([email protected]):
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:11:29PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Introduce the nsproxy struct. Doesn't do anything yet, but has it's
> > own lifecycle pretty much mirrorring the fs namespace.
> >
> > Subsequent patches will move the namespace struct into the nsproxy.
> > Then as more namespaces are introduced, such as utsname, they can
> > be added to the nsproxy as well.
>
> Is there any reason why those can't be simply part of namespace? I.e.
> be carried by the stuff mounted in standard places...
The argument has been that it is desirable to be able to unshare these
namespaces - uid, pid, network, sysv, utsname, fs-namespace -
separately. Are you talking about having these all be part of a single
namespace unshared all at once (and stored in struct namespace)? Or am
I misunderstandimg you entirely?
Andi Kleen (I believe) thinks it should be like that, all or nothing. I
think Herbert Poetzl had current examples where vserver is used to
unshare just pieces, i.e. apache unsharing network but sharing global
pidspace.
thanks,
-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/
[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]
