Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:01:16 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace |
| |
sukadev@us.ibm.com wrote: > We want to provide isolation between containers, meaning PTYs in container > C1 should not be accessible to processes in C2 (unless C2 is an ancestor).
Yes, I certainly can understand the desire for isolation. That wasn't what my question was about.
> The other reason for this in the longer term is for checkpoint/restart. > When restarting an application we want to make sure that the PTY indices > it was using is available and isolated.
OK, this would be the motivation for index isolation.
> A complete device-namespace could solve this, but IIUC, is being planned > in the longer term. We are hoping this would provide the isolation in the > near-term without being too intrusive or impeding the implementation of > the device namespace.
I'm just worried about the accumulation of what feels like ad hoc namespaces, causing a very large combination matrix, a lot of which don't make sense.
-hpa
| |