On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 11:00:57AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> > >> Dave Hansen <hansendc@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > >> > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:04 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 
> > >> >> I would also
> > >> >> like to see how we perform the appropriate lookups by pid
> > >> >> namespace.
> > >> >
> > >> > What do you mean?
> > >>
> > >> proc_pid_readdir ... next_tgid().
> > >
> > > next_tgid() is simple enough - we can always use current->pid_ns
> > > to find the next pidnr.
> >
> > No. We cannot use current->pid_ns. We must get it from the mount or
> > something in the mount.
> 
> Actually I think Dave has it coming from superblock data.
> 
> > Using current to set the default pid_ns to mount is fine. But if
> > we use current to select our files we have a moderately serious
> > problem.
> >
> > > The only hitch, as mentioned earlier, is how do we find the first
> > > task. Currently task 1 is statically stored as the first inode,
> > > and as Dave mentioned we can't do that now, because we dont' know
> > > of any one task which will outlive the pid_ns.
> >
> > Outlive is the wrong concept. Ideally we want something that will
> > live as long as there are processes in the pid_ns.
>
> And there is no such thing.
>
> > As I thought about this some more there are some problems for
> > holding a reference to a pid_ns for a long period of time. Currently
> > struct_pid is designed so you can hang onto it forever. struct
> > pid_namespace isn't. So we have some very interesting semantic
> > questions of what happens when the pid namespace exits.
> >
> > Since we distinguish mounts by their pid namespace this looks like
> > something we need to sort through.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> > >> While I'm not categorically opposed to supporting things like
> > >> that it but it is something for which we need to tread very
> > >> carefully because it is an extension of current semantics. I
> > >> can't think of any weird semantics right now but for something
> > >> user visible we will have to support indefinitely I don't see a
> > >> reason to rush into it either.
> > >
> > > Except that unless we mandate that pid1 in any namespace can't
> > > exit, and put that feature off until later, we can't not address
> > > it.
> >
> > What if we mandate that pid1 is the last process to exit?
> 
> I think people have complained about that in the past for application
> containers, but I really don't see where it hurts anything.
> 
> Cedric, Herbert, did one of you think it would be bad?

yes, we (Linux-VServer) consider that bad, because it
would not allow to have lightweight containers which
do not have a real init process ...

e.g. think: 'guest running sshd only' 

thanks,
Herbert

> > Problems actually only show up in this context if other pids live
> > substantially longer than pid1.
> > 
> > >> True but we are getting close.  And it is about time we worked up
> > >> patches for that so our conversations can become less theoretical.
> > >
> > > Yes I really hope a patchset goes out today.
> > 
> > Sounds good.   I expect it will take a couple of rounds of review,
> > before we have all of the little things nailed down but starting that
> > process is a hopeful sign.
> 
> I'm hoping some of the earlier patches can be acked this time so we can
> get to discussing the more interesting parts :)
> 
> But I'm afraid it might be no earlier than tomorrow that the patches go
> out.  Will try.
> 
> thanks,
> -serge
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers