Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@free.fr> writes: > Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >> I can see that lxc-unshare isn't for me: I wanted to use it to avoid >> adding the extra lxc-start process between two daemons communicating via >> signals, but it's impossible to unshare PID namespaces, so I'm doomed. > > There is a pending patchset to unshare the pid namespace, maybe for > 2.6.35 or 2.6.36 ...
Then why does lxc-unshare insist on forking? I thought unsharing the PID namespace was infeasible, because it changed the value returned by getpid(), but if more and more unsharing gets implemented, a PID-conserving helper would seem quite useful. Maybe not for virtualizing full systems, but very much for insulating batch jobs under the supervision of some scheduler (like SGE for example). -- Thanks, Feri. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users