"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The way I'm testing pidspaces right now is > > ns_exec -c -p /usr/sbin/sshd -p 9999 > > in which case sshd is pid1. Works fine... > > Would it be very limiting to have the first process have to stick > around? (I'm asking, not criticizing - it's *my* preference that we > allow pid==1 to exit, but if that's really not advantageous then > maybe it's not worth fixing the ugly pieces that require it right > now - afaik right now that's only the fact that PROC_INODE(/proc)->pid > points to the struct pid for pidnr==1)
The /proc part is easy to fix. All I want to see there is that we do the right thing with pid related files. When the pid namespace is empty. The practical reason for only allowing a pid namespace while pid == 1 exists, is something much more simple. pid == 1 must exists today. We get into an extension of the semantics if we allow the case where pid == 1 exists. Semantic extensions can be very tricky, and we are way to early to see what the impact of such a semantic extension would be. Therefore I request that we get a correct and work pid namespace before we try and extend things. I also request that until questions like this are settles we leave the whole thing CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. I have yet to see how we are going to implement things such as kill -1. And the other changes. There are huge chunks of functionality that we haven't gotten to yet. 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
