Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > okay, then please lets make sure that this actually > works, because I think it might solve most of the > lightweight guest issues the suggested pid spaces > would introduce ... > > I tried that some time back, but the procfs really > provides _a lot_ of deep linked details for each > process, and I postponed that approach back then > when I realized that I would have to fill in quite > a lot of static data to make procfs happy (with a > static inizialized fake init)
Ok. I now see what the real question is. The idle thread never shows up in /proc so I don't know if this is quite complete. The bits we fill in are designed to be enough for fork/clone and other pieces so we don't need special cases in the code to deal with the idle thread. I think the idle thread quite possibly has enough information to show up in /proc but that is a separate case. Definitely something to discuss when we come back to unshare of the pid namespace. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
