Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable forkernel?

[Dave Hansen]

On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 14:14 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I like the namespace nomenclature.  (It can be shorted to _space  or _ns).
> In part because it shortens well, and in part because it emphasizes that
> we are *just* dealing with the names.

When I was looking at this, I was pretending to be just somebody looking
at sysv code, with no knowledge of containers or namespaces.

For a person like that, I think names like _space or _ns are pretty much
not an option, unless those terms become as integral to the kernel as
things like kobjects.  

> You split the resolution at just ipc_msgs.  When I really think it should
> be everything ipcs deals with.

This was just the first patch. :)

> Performing the assignment inside the tasklist_lock is not something we
> want to do in do_fork().

Any particular reason why?  There seem to be a number of things done in
there that aren't _strictly_ needed under the tasklist_lock.  Where
would you do it?

> So it looks like a good start.  There are a lot of details yet to be filled
> in, proc, sysctl, cleanup on namespace release.  (We can still provide
> the create destroy methods even if we don't hook the up).

Yeah, I saved shm for last because it has the largest number of outside
interactions.  My current thoughts are that we'll need _contexts or
_namespaces associated with /proc mounts as well.  

> I think in this case I would put the actual namespace structure
> definition in util.h, and just put a struct ipc_ns in sched.h.

Ahhh, as in

	struct ipc_ns;

And just keep a pointer from the task?  Yeah, that does keep it quite
isolated.  

-- Dave


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/