Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] Some basic vserver infrastructure

[Eric W. Biederman]

Herbert Poetzl <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> hmm, isn't per process a little extreme ... I know
> what you want to accomplish but won't this lead to
> a per process procfs? 

Where all of the values vary per process possibly, that
is they way /proc is supposed to be.

/proc/sys is the only case that I think really gets extreme.
For things like /proc/sysvipc and /proc/net it really is a natural
break, and /proc/mounts already shows that the technique works fine.

So I am trying to turn an ugly design choice into feature :)

> and, if you want to do per
> process procfs, what would be the gain?
>
> just my opinion ...

Under the covers the implementation is per namespace, but
it isn't easy to export it that way from procfs.

In any event this appears to be a way to implement these things
while retaining backwards compatibility, with the current implementation,
and it looks like it can be implemented fairly cleanly.

Eric
-
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/