[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-10-29 Thread Oren Laadan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oren Laadan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | (sorry from the delay, been away :) | | Eric W. Biederman wrote: | > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | >> Sorry, I was focusing on the virtual server needs. | >> | >> devpts is it's own fs so I was fully expe

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-10-17 Thread sukadev
Oren Laadan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | (sorry from the delay, been away :) | | Eric W. Biederman wrote: | > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | >> Sorry, I was focusing on the virtual server needs. | >> | >> devpts is it's own fs so I was fully expecting to make it mountable |

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-26 Thread Oren Laadan
(sorry from the delay, been away :) Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Sorry, I was focusing on the virtual server needs. >> >> devpts is it's own fs so I was fully expecting to make it mountable >> multiple times so a container can have it's own /dev/p

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-10 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry, I was focusing on the virtual server needs. > > devpts is it's own fs so I was fully expecting to make it mountable > multiple times so a container can have it's own /dev/pts/0. So what > other virtual devices would we want to be able to rec-

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-10 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > then you should have taken CAP_SYS_MKNOD away from the container. > >> > >> no serge, > >> > >> we want the container to be able to mknod() > > > > Someone give me one good reason why this is

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-08 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > then you should have taken CAP_SYS_MKNOD away from the container. >> >> no serge, >> >> we want the container to be able to mknod() > > Someone give me one good reason why this is needed. The picture that I see is still fuzzy, so I cannot say

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-06 Thread Kirill Korotaev
Cedric Le Goater wrote: >>> * possible direction for C/R user api >>> . checkpoint/restart syscalls >>>. C/R file systems >>> solves the set id issue >>> elegant but exposes too much the ABI >> >>I vote for the filesystem :) I'd add more details as

[Devel] Re: [DRAFT] Container mini-summit notes v0.01

2007-09-06 Thread Cedric Le Goater
>> * possible direction for C/R user api >> . checkpoint/restart syscalls >> . C/R file systems >>solves the set id issue >>elegant but exposes too much the ABI > > I vote for the filesystem :) I'd add more details as we did on mini-summit.