From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:32:10 -0400 Message-ID: <49C0B18A.90208@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1236880612-15316-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090312162954.4a4b8e00@thinkcentre.lan> <87fxhipfrh.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <49B99144.9000106@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49B99144.9000106-GANU6spQydw@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: Daniel Lezcano Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Dan Smith , Nathan Lynch List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Dan Smith wrote: >> NL> I'd like there to be some discussion about this, because namespace >> NL> creation seems like a significant addition to the semantics of >> NL> restart as I understand it. >> >> Indeed. >> >> NL> Is namespace creation during restart unavoidable, or merely >> NL> desirable? Is there a case for requiring the user to provide a >> NL> suitable namespace environment before attempting restart? >> >> Information about the namespaces has to be saved at checkpoint time no >> matter what, right? I guess I don't see any compelling reason to not >> have the restart operation replicate the environment of the original >> process. Otherwise we require userspace to read and interpret the >> checkpoint stream and selectively feed the bits that the kernel is >> responsible for to the kernel and process the rest itself (or have the >> kernel ignore those records). >> > > Assuming you have a process and this one unshared the network 100 times > and each time opens a socket, how do you checkpoint these namespaces ? > >> What's the argument for depending on userspace to set this up? >> > Maybe, CR of the namespaces is more complicate topic than it looks like s/Maybe/Surely/ ... > and the CR itself is big enough to not complicate things. IMHO, I would > recommend as the first step to forbid the unshare inside a container and > let the container implementation to save the configuration with the > statefile in order to recreate it at the restart > Agreed. Oren.