Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
> Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> let me
>> give a simple example here:
>
> Examples are useful.
>
>> "pid virtualization"
>>
>> - Linux-VServer doesn't really need that right now.
>> we are perfectly fine with "pid isolation" here, we
>> only "virtualize" the init pid to make pstree happy
>>
>> - Snapshot/Restart and Migration will require "full"
>> pid virtualization (that's where Eric and OpenVZ
>> are heading towards)
>
> snapshot/restart/migration worry me. If they require complete
> serialisation of complex kernel data structures then we have a problem,
> because it means that any time anyone changes such a structure they need to
> update (and test) the serialisation.
There is a strict limit to what is user visible, and if it isn't user visible
we will never need it in a checkpoint. So internal implementation details
should not matter.
> This may be a show-stopper, in which case maybe we only need to virtualise
> pid #1.
Except we do need something for pid isolation, and a pid namespace is
quite possibly the light weight solution. If you can't see the pid it is
clearly isolated from you.
> Anyway. Thanks, guys. It sound like most of this work will be nicely
> separable so we can think about each bit as it comes along.
Yes, and there are enough issues it is significant.
Eric
-
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]
