Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:53:26 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization |
| |
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > > I think it should be acceptable if a pidspace is visible in all it's > > ancestor pidspaces. I.e. if I create pspace2 and pspace3 from pid 234 > > in pspace1, then pspace2 doesn't need to be able to address pspace3 > > and vice versa. > > A good rule. Now consider pspace 4 which is a child of pid 567 > in pspace 3. > > What should pspace 3 see?
Implementation dependent.
What I'd like to see is:
> What should pspace 3 see?
The pid of the init process for pspace 4.
> What should pspace 1 see?
The pid of the init process for pspace 3.
> What happens when you migrate pspace 3 into a different pspace > on a different machine?
Nothing special. "Migrate" was just a checkpoint (from pspace 1) and a resume (from pspace N on some machine). So now pspace N on the new machine has created a new pspace - which happens to be immediately populated with the contents of the old pspace 3 - and see the pid of the init process of this new pspace.
> Is there a sane implementation for this?
IMO, definately yes.
But I haven't tried it, so my opinion is just that.
-serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |