Eric W. Biederman wrote:

Pavel Emelyanov [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Pavel Emelyanov [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Thanks. What's the problem with setns?

joining a preexisting namespace is roughly the same problem as
unsharing a namespace.  We simply haven't figure out how to do it
safely for the pid and the uid namespaces.

The pid may change after this for sure. What problems do you know
about it? What if we try to allocate the same PID in a new space
or return -EBUSY? This will be a good starting point. If we manage
to fix it later this will not break the API at all.

Parentage.  The pid is the identity of a process and all kinds of things
make assumptions in all kinds of strange places.  I don't see how
waitpid can work if you change the pid.

Agree. But what if we enter a pid space, which is a subnamespace of a current
one? In that case parent will still see the task by its old pid. We can restrict
first version of entering with this rule as well and this restriction will not
block us in typical usecase (I mean enter a container from a host).

glibc doesn't cope if you change someones pid.

OK, but what if we try to allocate the same pid returning -EBUSY on failure?

My aim is to provide even a restricted enter. For most of the cases this
should work and make our lives easier. So two restrictions currently:
a) enter a sub namespace
b) allocate the same pid as we have now

Hm? :)

quoted

quoted

Definitely.  I only consider the current interface to be a mushy not
set in stone.

OK. The interface is good. I just don't want you to send it for an inclusion
until we decide what to do with waiting.

Sure.  I am get a jump on 2.6.35 not aiming for inclusion this merge
window.  There is plenty of time.

Good!

quoted

Poll is OK with me. As far as the notification is concerned - that's also
done in OpenVZ. If you are OK to wait for a week or two I can do it for net
namespaces.

Seems reasonable.

OK. I'll spend some time playing with it next week then.

Eric

Thanks,
Pavel