Re: question: pid space semantics.

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 11:43:38AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 
>> To retain any part of the existing unix process management
>> we need some processes that show up in multiple pid spaces.
>
> hmm ... not sure about that, what 'we' need is a way
> to move between pid spaces and to control processes
> in a child space from the parent process ...

The conditional was this is what it takes to reuse the existing
interfaces.

> nevertheless I don't think we have a problem with
> schizophrenic processes if they have a somewhat sane
> *G* interface/view into both spaces ...
>
>> To allow for migration it must be possible for the pids in 
>> those pid spaces to be different.
>
> I take that as migration of a 'container' from one
> system to another, not as 'migration' between spaces

Yes.

> I don't understand what you mean here, please elaborate

Basically that in the general case there can be no assumptions
that a pids in one pid space do not conflict with pids in another pids
space.

>> It is undesirable in the normal case of affairs to allocate more
>> than one pid per process.
>> 
>> Given the small range of pid values these constraints make an
>> efficient and general pid space solution challenging.
>> 
>> The question:
>>   If we could add additional pid values in different pid spaces 
>>   to a process with a syscall upon demand would that lead to an
>>   implementation everyone could use? 
>
> again, for what would I need a 'second' or 'third' pid
> value for a process either on demand or permanent for
> handling or migration?

Not for migration for things such a ptrace, ioprio, granting of
capabilities or any of the kernel's management operations 

Eric