On 06/05/2012 04:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

On 06/05/2012 12:00 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

On 06/05/2012 01:37 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

On 06/05/2012 01:36 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

On 06/04/2012 03:33 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

Currently, it is possible for a process to join existing
net, uts and ipc namespaces. This patch allows a process to join an
existing pid namespace as well.

For that to remain sane, some restrictions are made in the calling
process:

* It needs to be in the parent namespace of the namespace it wants to
jump to
* It needs to sit in its own session and group as a leader.

The rationale for that, is that people want to trigger actions in a
Container
from the outside. For instance, mainstream linux recently gained the
ability
to safely reboot a container. It would be desirable, however, that
this
action is triggered from an admin in the outside world, very much
like a
power switch in a physical box.

This would also allow us to connect a console to the container,
provide a
repair mode for setups without networking (or with a broken one), etc.

Hi Glauber,

I am in favor of this patch but I think the pidns support won't be
complete and some corner-cases are not handled.

May be you can look at Eric's patchset [1] where, IMO, everything is
taken into account. Some of the patches may be already upstream.

Thanks
-- Daniel

I don't remember seeing such patchset in the mailing lists, but that
might be my fault, due to traffic...

I'll take a look. If it does what I need, I can just drop this.

Ok. In a quick look, it does not seem to go all the way. This is just
by reading, but your reboot patch, for instance, is unlikely to work
with that, since if it doesn't alter pid->level, things like task
ns_of_pid won't work.

Running the test scripts I wrote for my testing of that patch also
doesn't seem to produce the expected result:

after doing setns, the pid won't show up in that namespace.

Yes, AFAIR, pid won't show up, you have to do fork-exec.

Ah, so you mean the kid will show up... Well, ok.

That's acceptable, but how about the behavior I am proposing ? (in the 
patch I sent as a reply to this thread).

I believe it to be saner, even though there is a price tag attached to 
it. None of the other setns calls require you to do any such trickery...