lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-09 20:11    [W:0.114 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site