From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ns: Syscalls for better namespace sharing control. Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:45:16 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4B4F24AC.70105@trash.net> <1266934817.3973.654.camel@bigi> <1266966581.3973.675.camel@bigi> <4B883987.6090408@parallels.com> <4B883E6F.1060907@parallels.com> <4B88D80A.8010701@parallels.com> <4B88E431.6040609@parallels.com> <4B894564.7080104@parallels.com> <4B89727C.9040602@parallels.com> <4B8AE8C1.1030305@free.fr> <4B8D28CF.8060304@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavel Emelyanov , Daniel Lezcano , hadi@cyberus.ca, Patrick McHardy , Linux Netdev List , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Ben Greear , Serge Hallyn , Matt Helsley To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Jan Engelhardt's message of "Tue\, 2 Mar 2010 16\:14\:23 +0100 \(CET\)") Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt writes: > On Tuesday 2010-03-02 16:03, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>> I agree with all the points you and Pavel you talked about but I don't >>> feel comfortable to have the current process to switch the pid namespace >>> because of the process tree hierarchy (what will be the parent of the >>> process when you enter the pid namespace for example). >> >>The answer is - the one, that used to be. I see no problems with it. >>Do you? > > But perhaps it could be named "namespacefd" instead of nsfd, to reduce > potential clashes (because glibc will usually just use the same name > when making the syscall available as a C function). Maybe. namespacefd seems like a real mouthful. I agree nsfd might be a bit non-obvious for a rarish syscall. Eric