From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: legacy mode Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:36:40 -0500 Message-ID: <87h9nf5blz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> References: <20150827202137.GA4221@mail.hallyn.com> <20150827202722.GH26785@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150827204500.GA4447@mail.hallyn.com> <20150827204825.GI26785@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150827204825.GI26785-qYNAdHglDFBN0TnZuCh8vA@public.gmane.org> (Tejun Heo's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:48:25 -0400") Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Tejun Heo writes: > Hello, Serge. > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 03:45:00PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> > If the legacy userspace doesn't do any resource control, the leaf rule >> > restriction doesn't apply anyway, so nothing to worry about. >> >> My main use case is nested lxc, presumably with systemd inside some of >> the nested containers, so this would definately be an issue. > > W/o controllers in the nested environment, it should be fine. W/ > controllers, I don't think this is going to fly. I don't think trying > to bridge the two versions is a healthy direction in the long term. Which strongly suggests that the unified hierarchy will never be deployable as it breaks too much userspace. Eric