On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 03:45:34AM +0900, kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:49:16 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > Fundamentally the basic question is how does the implementation cope
> > with processes having sysvshm mappings obtained from 2 different jails
> > (provided th
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:49:16 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:53:53AM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>>
>>
>> > On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I’m (still) trying t
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:10 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +, "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>>
>>
>>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I’m (still) tryin
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +, "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>
>
>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should be.
>
> The best way p
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:53:53AM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>
>
> > On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should
> > be.
>
> Th
Hi,
removed hackers, added virtualization.
> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should be.
The best way probably is to finally get the “common” VIMAGE framework into HEAD
to allow easy
