From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422916AbXCGRcZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:32:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422850AbXCGRcU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:32:20 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:33985 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422897AbXCGRcP (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:32:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=wsKxGhRvUVk6lfTJzz5FxXFHXz/JJgmm8sZ0oCAVRkRHXGCp/KunV1onrgEX8Y+fE OYUXCJQlD/OFfzwTtWX5A== Message-ID: <6599ad830703070929r1fa9629cjef1570b461e2b77@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:29:12 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, sam@vilain.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pj@sgi.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, winget@google.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > - when you do sys_unshare() or a clone that creates new namespaces, > > then the task (or its child) will get a new nsproxy that has the rcfs > > subsystem state associated with the old nsproxy, and one or more > > namespace pointers cloned to point to new namespaces. So this means > > that the nsproxy for the task is no longer the nsproxy associated with > > any directory in rcfs. (So the task will disappear from any "tasks" > > file in rcfs?) > > it "should" disappear yes, although I haven't carefully studied the > unshare requirements yet. That seems bad. With the current way you're doing it, if I mount hierarchies A and B on /mnt/A and /mnt/B, then initially all tasks are in /mnt/A/tasks and /mnt/B/tasks. If I then create /mnt/A/foo and move a process into it, that process disappears from /mnt/B/tasks, since its nsproxy no longer matches the nsproxy of B's root container. Or am I missing something? Paul