From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 8/8] cgroup: Add documentation for cgroup namespaces Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:17:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20150211051704.GB24897@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20150107224430.GA28414@htj.dyndns.org> <878uhe42km.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20150107230615.GA28630@htj.dyndns.org> <87fvbm2nni.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87y4peyxw5.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20150107233553.GC28630@htj.dyndns.org> <20150211034616.GA25022@mail.hallyn.com> <20150211040957.GC21356@htj.duckdns.org> <20150211042942.GA27931@mail.hallyn.com> <87oap1qbv3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gvFspu5C+i+lxSEc2oNJQN8W7XwLU8R2ACwt8zVFxqc=; b=yMGYYdP4E/VyIQ/m4PLcl4QimGacfEqi451l/4Ax8SRyatcGhH+rOhcXqsX+9rTzwm TpjMia/xWHh7AFG6pFQZmhOifLKZCsq2Z7uuK0pS0FdWX5Kc6TKZz6a6lqE1XYtllgTy zOvEBgpkD4c9zM34HaYf3IIWQAUdR9rYZ1mzt8NqqC7GJXcGOuZULMCs33WR0zWHWYDc X7bdZ7QbOz+B8DgWCttP5UqFySulvtc388+VlgcAzLkIA2Ysz0CTSg+Uryx6tntJv7UR Bl3F25HiaKTBFeH8oE3MgiJ58+MblqNRY7F6CCl2Ls0+v0unWTp+gCiFrypmrsUVSKKf Ailg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87oap1qbv3.fsf-JOvCrm2gF+uungPnsOpG7nhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Richard Weinberger , Linux API , Linux Containers , Serge Hallyn , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Andy Lutomirski , cgroups mailinglist , Ingo Molnar Hey, On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:02:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > A slightly off topic comment, for where this thread has gone but > relevant if we are talking about cgroup namespaces. > > If don't implement compatibility with existing userspace, they get a > nack. A backwards-incompatible change should figure out how to remove > the need for any namespaces. > > Because that is what namespaces are about backwards compatibility. Are you claiming that namespaces are soley about backwards compatibility? ie. to trick userland into scoping without letting it notice? That's a very restricted view and namespaces do provide further isolation capabilties in addition to what can be achieved otherwise and it is logical to collect simliar funtionalities there. Thanks. -- tejun