From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: <49B996BC.1090908@free.fr> References: <1236880612-15316-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090312162954.4a4b8e00@thinkcentre.lan> <87fxhipfrh.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <49B99144.9000106@free.fr> <877i2upcvo.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <877i2upcvo.fsf-FLMGYpZoEPULwtHQx/6qkW3U47Q5hpJU@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: Dan Smith Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Nathan Lynch List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Dan Smith wrote: > DL> Assuming you have a process and this one unshared the network 100 > DL> times and each time opens a socket, how do you checkpoint these > DL> namespaces ? > > >>> What's the argument for depending on userspace to set this up? >>> >>> > DL> Maybe, CR of the namespaces is more complicate topic than it looks > DL> like and the CR itself is big enough to not complicate > DL> things. IMHO, I would recommend as the first step to forbid the > DL> unshare inside a container and let the container implementation to > DL> save the configuration with the statefile in order to recreate it > DL> at the restart > > I think what you're suggesting here is some sort of check to make sure > we don't allow checkpointing a process with nested namespaces... is > that correct? If so, I agree. > Correct. I guess it will be esay to implement with a nsproxy level counter. Each time you unshare, the new nsproxy count is incremented. Assuming the init_nsproxy is level 0, when the nsproxy counter is > 1, the process is uncheckpointable.