Quoting Bostjan Skufca (bost...@a2o.si): > On 15 September 2015 at 19:46, Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > It sounds like it may be worthwhile. The patch shouldn't be huge, so > > I think it's worth creating the patch and sending it to the list. Do > > make sure to give a detailed description of how you'll use it. (Don't > > assume I'll remember :) > > Tnx for the heads up. Two questions: > > 1. Configuration variable naming: > (intended for all lxc-users participants) > > I lean towards something that is similar to what we currently have for > setting limits in Linux. Thus I would prefer the setting to be called > "lxc.ulimit.openfiles" or "lxc.ulimit.openfds" and not go with > "lxc.rlimit.nofile", which is a reflection of syscall that does the > actual trick. > I understand that this is just an opinion, and I am interested in some > other views. What is your opinion about this?
So long as it's documented in the lxc.container.conf manpage, use your best judgement. I'd probably have defaulted to rlimit, but I buy your justification, so go with ulimit. > 2. Code placement: > Conceptually this probably fits right before uidmapshift is being > done, and after forking (cloning). Do you have any more specific > pointers? Not offhand, sorry. Looks like right before the child does lxc_sync_barrier_parent(handler, LXC_SYNC_CONFIGURE) would be the right place, unless you were to add a new sync point right before the parent does the lxc_map_ids(). -serge _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
