From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:58:19 -0700 Message-ID: <877i2upcvo.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> 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> (Daniel Lezcano's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:48:36 +0100") 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, Nathan Lynch List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org 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. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org