Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> writes:

> okay, then please lets make sure that this actually
> works, because I think it might solve most of the
> lightweight guest issues the suggested pid spaces
> would introduce ...
>
> I tried that some time back, but the procfs really
> provides _a lot_ of deep linked details for each
> process, and I postponed that approach back then
> when I realized that I would have to fill in quite
> a lot of static data to make procfs happy (with a
> static inizialized fake init)

Ok.  I now see what the real question is.  The idle thread never shows
up in /proc so I don't know if this is quite complete.  The bits we
fill in are designed to be enough for fork/clone and other pieces
so we don't need special cases in the code to deal with the idle thread.

I think the idle thread quite possibly has enough information to show
up in /proc but that is a separate case.

Definitely something to discuss when we come back to unshare of the
pid namespace.

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