Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:45:22 +0200 (CEST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] change clone_flags type to u64 | From | "Daniel Hokka Zakrisson" <> |
| |
Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Daniel Hokka Zakrisson (daniel@hozac.com): >> Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> > Quoting Andi Kleen (andi@firstfloor.org): >> >> > I guess that was a development rationale. >> >> >> >> But what rationale? It just doesn't make much sense to me. >> >> >> >> > Most of the namespaces are in >> >> > use in the container projects like openvz, vserver and probably >> others >> >> > and we needed a way to activate the code. >> >> >> >> You could just have added it to feature groups over time. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Not perfect I agree. >> >> > >> >> > > With your current strategy are you sure that even 64bit will >> >> > > be enough in the end? For me it rather looks like you'll >> >> > > go through those quickly too as more and more of the kernel >> >> > > is namespaced. >> >> > >> >> > well, we're reaching the end. I hope ! devpts is in progress and >> >> > mq is just waiting for a clone flag. >> >> >> >> Are you sure? >> > >> > Well for one thing we can take a somewhat different approach to new >> > clone flags. I.e. we could extend CLONE_NEWIPC to do mq instead of >> > introducing a new clone flag. The name doesn't have 'sysv' in it, >> > and globbing all ipc resources together makes some amount of sense. >> > Similarly has hpa+eric pointed out earlier, suka could use >> > CLONE_NEWDEV for ptys. If we have net, pid, ipc, devices, that's a >> > pretty reasonable split imo. Perhaps we tie user to devices and get >> > rid of CLONE_NEWUSER which I suspect noone is using atm (since only >> > Dave has run into the CONFIG_USER_SCHED problem). Or not. We could >> > roll uts into net, and give CLONE_NEWUTS a deprecation period. >> >> Please don't. Then we'd need to re-add it in Linux-VServer to support >> guests where network namespaces aren't used... > > So these are networked vservers with a different hostname? Just > curious, what would be a typical use for these?
Layer 3 isolation will continue to be the default for Linux-VServer.
> Anyway then I guess we won't :) Do you have other suggestions for > ns clone flags which ought to be combined? Do the rest of what I > listed make sense to you? (If not, then I guess I'll step out of the > way and let you and Andi fight it out :)
I think putting mq under CLONE_NEWIPC makes sense, as well as using CLONE_NEWDEV for the ptys. If CLONE_NEWUSER is to be combined with anything, I think it makes more sense to combine it with CLONE_NEWPID than CLONE_NEWDEV.
> thanks, > -serge >
-- Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
| |