Re: Time Namespaces: CLONE_NEWTIME and clone3()?

Christian Brauner [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:47:53PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

quoted

Actually, I think the alternative you propose just here is better. I
imagine there are times when one will want to create multiple
namespaces with a single call to clone3(), including a time namespace.
I think this should be allowed by the API. And, otherwise, clone3()
becomes something of a second-class citizen for creating namespaces.
(I don't really get the "less invasive" argument. Implementing this is
just a piece of kernel to code to make user-space's life a bit simpler
and more consistent.)

I don't particularly mind either way. If there's actual users that need
to set it at clone3() time then we can extend it. So I'd like to hear
what Adrian, Dmitry, and Thomas think since they are well-versed how
this will be used in the wild. I'm weary of exposing a whole new uapi
struct and extending clone3() without any real use-case but I'm happy to
if there is!

I really have no clue. I merily helped getting this in shape without
creating havoc for timekeeping and VDSO. I have to punt to the container
wizards.

Thanks,

        tglx