Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 16:23 +0100, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>>>> Even letting the concept of nsproxy escape to user space sounds wrong.
>>>>> nsproxy is an internal space optimization.  It's not struct container
>>>>> and I don't think we want it to become that.
>>>> i don't agree here. we need that, so does openvz, vserver, people working
>>>> on resource management.
>>> I think what those projects need is _some_ way to group tasks.  I'm not
>>> sure they actually need nsproxies.
>> not only tasks. ipc, fs, etc.
> 
> What is the important aspect that you need to group.  What concept
> are you trying to convey?
> 
> How do you describe a container in which someone is using the
> pam_namespace module?  So different tasks in the container have
> a different mount namespace?

let's define a container first. I'm not sure for what you are using that
term.
 
>>> Two tasks in the same container could very well have different
>>> nsproxies.  The nsproxy defines how the pid namespace, and pid<->task
>>> mappings happen for a given task.
>> not only. there are other namespaces in nsproxy.
> 
> The point is that there is not a one to one mapping between containers
> and nsproxies.  There are likely to be more nsproxies than containers.

again. please explain the difference that you see between a container 
and a nsproxy. I don't get it and i might be missing something important
doing this short cut.

C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers