From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cedric Le Goater <clg-NmTC/0ZBporQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Namespaces exhausted CLONE_XXX bits problem
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <478C7156.2090004@fr.ibm.com>
References: <478B6764.6050300@openvz.org> <478B7549.2020000@fr.ibm.com>	
	<478B76C4.8050804@openvz.org> <478B7DB3.9050702@fr.ibm.com>	
	<20080114163246.GA31663@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>	
	<478B9345.30004@openvz.org>
	<20080114180748.GA2772@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>	
	<478BD5CD.7030607@cs.columbia.edu>
	<1200347674.22674.28.camel@localhost> <478C6E14.1050901@openvz.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <478C6E14.1050901-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 16:36 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
>>> I second the concern of running out of 64 bits of flags. In fact, the
>>> problem with the flags is likely to be valid outside our context, and
>>> general to the linux kernel soon. Should we not discuss it there
>>> too ? 
>> It would be pretty easy to make a new one expandable:
>>
>> 	sys_newclone(int len, unsigned long *flags_array)
>>
>> Then you could give it a virtually unlimited number of "unsigned long"s
>> pointed to by "flags_array".
>>
>> Plus, the old clone just becomes:
>>
>>         sys_oldclone(unsigned long flags)
>>         {
>>         	do_newclone(1, &flags);
>>         }
>>
>> We could validate the flags array address in sys_newclone(), then call
>> do_newclone().
> 
> Hmm. I have an idea how to make this w/o a new system call. This might
> look wierd, but. Why not stopple the last bit with a CLONE_NEWCLONE and
> consider the parent_tidptr/child_tidptr in this case as the pointer to 
> an array of extra arguments/flargs?

It's a bit hacky but it looks like a good idea to me !

Shall we use parent_tidptr or child_tidptr to pass a extended array of 
flags only ? if we could pass the pid of the task to be cloned, it would 
be useful for c/r.

C.