Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@fr.ibm.com):
>>> The next steps are (not necessarily in order):
>>>
>>> 	1. allow rm -rf to kill all processes under a
>>> 	   ns_container - with the intent of killing all
>>> 	   processes in a virtual server
>>>
>>> 	2. implement transitioning into a populated container,
>>> 	   with the effect of setting the task's nsproxy to
>>> 	   the one represented by the container.
>>>
>>> 	3. define a file for each type of namespace in each
>> could that file be a directory exposing some critical data
>> from each namespace ? 
> 
> it probably could be, but that might be confusing since subcontainers
> are also directories.  Would just putting the data into the namespace
> files suffice?  This isn't sysfs so no 1-value-per-file restrictions...

ok. 

Would it be reasonable to use such a file to expose or hide network
interfaces in an l3 network namespace ?

what would be nice now is to rebase Paul's patchset on next -mm and 
see how we interact with it and the namespaces ? I already did such a
merge a while ago but there was no connections between the features. 
We need to come to that point.

I'll try again when andrew releases and include your patch, serge.

regards,

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