On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 18:20 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 23:06 +0000, David Howells wrote:

quoted

James Bottomley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I thought we got agreement years ago that containers don't exist in
Linux as a single entity: they're currently a collection of cgroups
and namespaces some of which may and some of which may not be local
to the entity the orchestration system thinks of as a "container".

I wasn't party to that agreement and don't feel particularly bound by
it.

That's not at all relevant, is it?  The point is we have widespread
uses of namespaces and cgroups that span containers today meaning that
a "container id" becomes a problematic concept.  What we finally got to
with the audit people was an unmodifiable label which the orchestration
system can set ... can't you just use that?

Sorry James, I fail to see how assigning an id to a collection of objects
constitutes a problem or how that could restrict the way a container is
used.

Isn't the only problem here the current restrictions on the way objects
need to be combined as a set and the ability to be able add or subtract
from that set.

Then again the notion of active vs. inactive might not be sufficient to
allow for the needed flexibility ...

Ian