OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [patch -mm 00/17] new namespaces and related syscalls
Re: [patch -mm 09/17] nsproxy: add namespace flags [message #16962 is a reply to message #16865] Mon, 11 December 2006 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Cedric Le Goater is currently offline  Cedric Le Goater
Messages: 443
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>>>>  /*
>>>> + * namespaces flags
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define NS_MNT		0x00000001
>>>> +#define NS_UTS		0x00000002
>>>> +#define NS_IPC		0x00000004
>>>> +#define NS_PID		0x00000008
>>>> +#define NS_NET		0x00000010
>>>> +#define NS_USER		0x00000020
>>>> +#define NS_ALL		(NS_MNT|NS_UTS|NS_IPC|NS_PID|NS_NET|NS_USER)
>>> hmm, why _another_ set of flags to refer to the
>>> namespaces?
>> well, because namespaces are a new kind in the kernel
> 
> Gratuitous incompatibility.

?

>>> is the clone()/unshare() set of flags not sufficient
>>> for that?
>> because we are reaching the limits of the CLONE_ flags.
> 
> Not really.   There are at least 8 bits that clone cannot use
> but that unshare can.

please, could you list them ? 

>>> if so, shouldn't we switch (or even better change?
>>> the unshare() too) to a new set of syscalls?
>> unshare_ns() is a new syscall and we don't really need a
>> clone anyway. nop ?
> 
> Huh?  Clone should be the primary.   There are certain namespaces
> that it are very hard to unshare, without creating a new process.

You just said above that clone had less available flags than
unshare ...

anyway, could you elaborate a bit more ? I have the opposite 
feeling and you gave me that impression also a few month ago. 

No problem for me, i just want a way to use this stuff without


>>> we should think twice before we create just another
>>> set of flags, and if we do so, please let us change
>>> them all, including certain clone flags (and add a
>>> single compatibility wrapper for the 'old' syscalls)
>> so you would keep the unshare as is but change the set
>> of flags its using, making sure the old ones are still
>> compatible with the new ones.
>>
>> something like this :
>>
>> int sys_unshare(int unshare_flags)
>> {
>> 	int unshare_ns_flags;
>>
>> 	unshare_ns_flags = convert_flags(unshare_flags);
>>
>> 	return sys_unshare_ns(unshare_ns_flags);
>> }
>>
>> ?
> 
> If necessary.

ok good. will check it out.

C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: seems to be a flaw in cfq
Next Topic: [PATCH] compat offsets size change
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jul 04 08:32:18 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02272 seconds