On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 14:29 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 10/06/2011 02:59 PM, "Axel Schöner" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the new patchset consists of 3 patches: > > patch_1of3_lxc_cgroup_append_task_helper_cgroup > > patch_2of3_lxc_cgroup_append_task_helper_namespace > > patch_3of3_lxc_cgroup_append_task_in_lxc_attach > > > > I hope it is much better now. > > Thanks to Greg > > Axel, > > can you please resend your patchset ? They don't apply to the tree. > > Also, I am wondering if we really want to do that because the caller of > the lxc-attach is supposed to be at least the administrator of the > container, so do we really want to apply the restrictions to it ? >
I had a similar thought... but on the other hand, some people (like Axel I guess) use lxc-attach to add a new workflow to the container and expect container limitations to apply... Should we let the caller decide with a new argument to lxc-attach ? -- Gregory Kurz gk...@fr.ibm.com Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
