Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:16:34 -0500 | From | serge@hallyn ... | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace |
| |
Quoting H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com): > 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.
Hmm, if we were to just call this CLONE_NEWDEV, would that (a) make sense and (b) suitably address your (certainly valid) concern?
Basically for now CLONE_NEWDEV wouldn't yet be fully implemented, only unsharing unix98 ptys...
-serge
| |