Re: [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers

[Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>]

Paul Menage wrote:
>> No. A reverse mapping is not needed and is not interesting.
>>     
> ... to you.
>   

You're missing the point of Eric's next sentence.  If you can achieve
everything you need to achieve and get all the information you are after
without it, then it is uninteresting.

>> As long as I can walk all processes and ask what namespace are
>> you in I don't care.
>>     
>
> How do you currently do that?
>   

Take a look at /proc/PID/mounts for example.

>> All that is necessary to have a group of processes do something
>> in an unnamed fashion is to hang a pointer off of the task_struct.
>> That's easy.
>>     
> Right, adding a pointer to task_struct is easy. Configuring how/when
> to not directly inherit it from the parent, or to change it for a
> running task, or configuring state associated with the thing that the
> pointer is pointing to, naming that group, and determining which group
> a given process is assocaited with, is something that's effectively
> repeated boiler plate for each different subsystem, and which can be
> accomplished more generically via an abstraction like my containers
> patch.
>   

So make helpers.  Macros.  Anything, just don't introduce model
limitations like the container structure, because we've already got the
structure; the nsproxy.

Sam.