From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: CGroup Namespaces (v4) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 21:50:55 +0100 Message-ID: <564A41AF.4040208@nod.at> References: <1447703505-29672-1-git-send-email-serge@hallyn.com> <20151116204606.GA30681@mail.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151116204606.GA30681-7LNsyQBKDXoIagZqoN9o3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Richard Weinberger Cc: LKML , "open list:ABI/API" , Linux Containers , "Eric W. Biederman" , LXC development mailing-list , Tejun Heo , cgroups mailinglist , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Am 16.11.2015 um 21:46 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:41:15PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Serge, >> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:51 PM, wrote: >>> To summarize the semantics: >>> >>> 1. CLONE_NEWCGROUP re-uses 0x02000000, which was previously CLONE_STOPPED >>> >>> 2. unsharing a cgroup namespace makes all your current cgroups your new >>> cgroup root. >>> >>> 3. /proc/pid/cgroup always shows cgroup paths relative to the reader's >>> cgroup namespce root. A task outside of your cgroup looks like >>> >>> 8:memory:/../../.. >>> >>> 4. when a task mounts a cgroupfs, the cgroup which shows up as root depends >>> on the mounting task's cgroup namespace. >>> >>> 5. setns to a cgroup namespace switches your cgroup namespace but not >>> your cgroups. >>> >>> With this, using github.com/hallyn/lxc #2015-11-09/cgns (and >>> github.com/hallyn/lxcfs #2015-11-10/cgns) we can start a container in a full >>> proper cgroup namespace, avoiding either cgmanager or lxcfs cgroup bind mounts. >>> >>> This is completely backward compatible and will be completely invisible >>> to any existing cgroup users (except for those running inside a cgroup >>> namespace and looking at /proc/pid/cgroup of tasks outside their >>> namespace.) >>> cgroupns-root. >> >> IIRC one downside of this series was that only the new "sane" cgroup >> layout was supported >> and hence it was useless for everything which expected the default layout. >> Hence, still no systemd for us. :) >> >> Is this now different? > > Yes, all hierachies are no supported. > Should read "now"? :-) If so, *awesome*! Thanks, //richard