Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
>>
>> Now now, it's not being silently added, it was a very clearly commented
>> part of a proposed patchset sent to all interested parties for review,
>> and now being argued over.  Sounds kosher to me.
> 
> Yes. I guess the part that was moderately silent was the fact that it
> was intended to be exported to user space.  If you couldn't see the implication
> that part was not explicit.  But I do agree that I missed this patch
> in the first round of review, and my apologies for that.
> 
>> I think the problem is that some people wnat to see an answer to the
>> namespace entering problem right now, but the alternate solution ased on
>> using pids as implicit identifiers can't be used until the pidspaces are
>> fully implemented.
> 
> I agree with that and that is a worthy discussion.  
> 
> One of the reasons I'm not too concerned is that sys_ptrace completely
> solves that problem today.  The syscall interface completely sucks for
> handling that case but it works.
> 
> The one instance where we clearly need a way to talk about namespaces
> besides enter is for moving network interfaces between network
> namespaces and I haven't looked close yet but I don't think either
> Dmitry or Daniel in their network namespace patches was using this id.
> 

Well, I don't do that for the moment, but I was planning to use the 
namespace id.

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