From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: Q: How complete is the pid namespace in mainline Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: <4721AAD6.60501@fr.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Linux Containers , Pavel Emelyanov List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Guys how complete do you fee the pid namespace support is that > has been merged into Linus's tree? > > My impression until I started reading through code earlier today > was that the support was just about done except for a couple of > tricky details. Yes It looks sane. Here's what I have in mind : * there are some patches from suka that make sure the pid namespace init is not getting abusively killed by one of this children * the pid cleanup is not complete . locks . kthread (i should work soon on improving kthread to support signals) IMO, the proc mount shouldn't be under the pid namespace. we will need that sooner or later. C.