Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ long long thread ] > > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>>> what about a kthread that would be spawned when a task is cloned in an >>>>> unshared pid namespace ? This is an extra cost in term of tasks. >>>> If you use kernel_thread this can happen. (Die kernel_thread). >>>> If you use the kthread interface keventd will be the parent process and >>>> we won't have problems. >>> so is it something acceptable for mainline ? I think openvz has such >>> a thread doing the reaping. >> >> Please clarify. Is what acceptable for mainline? > > [ As i kind of jumped in the thread, i did some digging in the thread to > see where these comments were coming from. ] > > Correct me if i got something wrong : the initial question is how do we > handle the pid namespace exit and if we mandate task with pid == 1 to be > the last task to die ? > > So I suggested to have a kthread be pid == 1 for each new pid namespace. > the kthread can do the killing of all tasks if needed and will die when > the refcount on the pid namespace == 0. > > Would such a (rough) design be acceptable for mainline ?
The case that preserves existing semantics requires us to be able to run /sbin/init in a container. Therefore pid 1 should be a user space process. So I don't think a design that doesn't allow us to run /sbin/init as in a container would be acceptable for mainline. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
