Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> Dave Hansen <hansendc@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:51 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Outlive is the wrong concept.  Ideally we want something that will
> >> live as long as there are processes in the pid_ns. 
> >
> > How about they just live as long as there is a mount?  Now that we _can_
> > have multiple superblocks and meaningful vfsmounts, I think it's time to
> > make it act like a normal filesystem.  
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> My concern is that the mount will outlive the pid namespace.  In which
> case we need something that is safe to test when the pid namespace goes
> away.

Offhand I would assume the mount would get a reference to the pidns.
pidns may be empty, but would exist.

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