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
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers