Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> writes:

quoted text
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Thanks. What's the problem with setns?
>> 
>> joining a preexisting namespace is roughly the same problem as
>> unsharing a namespace.  We simply haven't figure out how to do it
>> safely for the pid and the uid namespaces.
>
> The pid may change after this for sure. What problems do you know
> about it? What if we try to allocate the same PID in a new space
> or return -EBUSY? This will be a good starting point. If we manage
> to fix it later this will not break the API at all.

Parentage.  The pid is the identity of a process and all kinds of things
make assumptions in all kinds of strange places.  I don't see how
waitpid can work if you change the pid.

glibc doesn't cope if you change someones pid.

quoted text
>> Definitely.  I only consider the current interface to be a mushy not
>> set in stone.
>
> OK. The interface is good. I just don't want you to send it for an inclusion
> until we decide what to do with waiting.

Sure.  I am get a jump on 2.6.35 not aiming for inclusion this merge
window.  There is plenty of time.

quoted text
>
> Poll is OK with me. As far as the notification is concerned - that's also
> done in OpenVZ. If you are OK to wait for a week or two I can do it for net
> namespaces.

Seems reasonable.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html