From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:10:55 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1236880612-15316-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090312162954.4a4b8e00@thinkcentre.lan> <87fxhipfrh.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <20090312224820.GA12723@hallyn.com> <87bps6pcyf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <49C0B069.6060300@cs.columbia.edu> <20090318134932.GC22636@us.ibm.com> <878wn353mf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <49C1175F.9060600@free.fr> <49C1506C.1080500@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49C1506C.1080500-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> (Mike Waychison's message of "Wed\, 18 Mar 2009 12\:50\:04 -0700") 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: Mike Waychison Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, Dan Smith , Nathan Lynch List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Mike Waychison writes: > Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> Dan Smith wrote: >>> SH> (Note that in Dan's next version, he did move unshare into >>> SH> userspace) >>> >>> The idealist in me still wants it to be in the kernel. However, after >>> seeing it done I agree that it's the right thing to do, at least in >>> this case. >> >> I would say in all cases. >> >> as you can't unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), > > Eric, > > Is there a particular reason the above doesn't work? I made an attempt to > implement it a while back, but haven't convinced myself that signals and > re-attaching a new struct pid to a running task is correct. Last time I was thinking about this I figured unsharing a pid namespace would simply place it's children in a different pid namespace, not the originating process. Would that semantic be useful? It would certainly be a lot less effort than changing the pid on a running process correctly. Eric