From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Serge Hallyn Subject: Re: Virtualizing /proc/sys/kernel/random/boot_id per container ? Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20120904152823.GC19564@amd1> References: <20120830211832.GA3297@redhat.com> <878vcwjabu.fsf@xmission.com> <20120830225002.GA9226@redhat.com> <87bohrhqai.fsf@xmission.com> <5044629C.3030909@parallels.com> <87r4qi6g6k.fsf@xmission.com> <5045BF05.9050707@parallels.com> <878vcq5ekx.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878vcq5ekx.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org): > Glauber Costa writes: > >> The twist of course is what does a boot mean. If we are really after > >> machine boots than the current behavior is correct. > >> > >> Looking back in the archives the desired behavior appears to be a value > >> that can be used to see if a pid value must be stale. > >> > >> As a stale pid detector boot_id is pretty lousy. Pids can still be > >> reused. > >> > >> Still a role as a stale pid detector makes it clear which namespace > >> boot_id should be in and how we should treat boot_id upon migration. > >> > >> You can only serve as a stale pid detector if you are in the pid > >> namespace. > >> > >> So at this point patches are welcome. Hopefully with a summary > >> of the discussion. > >> > >> Eric > >> > > > > Your discussion about boot_id being a limited solution is totally valid. > > But it is orthogonal to the question of whether or not a container > > should have it. > > The important part is that boot_id as originally conceived is an > identifier to be used in conjunction with pids. Therefore boot_id is a > proper pid_namespace component, and there are no semantic problems with > putting it in the kernel. > > > I took a look at this, and I think the kernel should be in perfect > > position to do it. > > Agreed. > > > boot_id as a pid namespace id is a very well defined concept. > > Agreed. > > A reference to the history and the definition needs to be in the patch > description. Huh. I must have glossed over that part of this thread. If you both agree to that, then I'm fine with it - I'll go read the history when the new patch comes by. thanks, -serge