From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765512AbXJZWfG (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:35:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755018AbXJZWe4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:34:56 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:49707 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753559AbXJZWe4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:34:56 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Kir Kolyshkin" Cc: , , , Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] pidns: Place under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL (take 2) References: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:34:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Kir Kolyshkin's message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:58:32 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Kir Kolyshkin" writes: > Speaking of this particular patch -- I don't understand how you fix > "innumerable little bugs" by providing stubs instead of real functions. I think it would be a disaster to use pid namespaces as currently implemented 2.6.24-rc1 in a production environment. There are lots of little bugs and I am certain know one knows what they are all right now. Therefore not creating more then the initial pid namespace in a production environment sounds like the responsible thing to do for 2.6.24. This patch enables people to guarantee they don't run software that will create additional pid namespaces and expose them to the bugs we have not yet found, and it says look out. Don't mess with this unless you know what you are doing. That message of Look out be careful is what I really care about sending to users of the kernel. The best way I know to do that is to mark the feature (EXPERIMENTAL) and have a config option for the feature that depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. Eric