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 00:24:22 +0100 Message-ID: <49B999A6.2000005@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> <49B996BC.1090908@free.fr> <873adipc5l.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <873adipc5l.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> I guess it will be esay to implement with a nsproxy level counter. > DL> Each time you unshare, the new nsproxy count is incremented. > DL> Assuming the init_nsproxy is level 0, when the nsproxy counter is > DL> > 1, the process is uncheckpointable. > > This should also be possible by just making sure that the nsproxy of > the root process being checkpointed is the same as any of the > children, correct? That way we avoid having to modify the core > nsproxy bits and can still reject any nested namespaces. > Right, this is another option. The nsproxy counter will allow to flag at runtime a process to be uncheckpointable. The nsproxy comparison will detect nested nsproxies at checkpoint time.