Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 8:39 pm

ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:


Thinking about this some more.  What is especially attractive if we do
all namespaces this way is that it solves two lurking problems.
1) How do you keep a namespace around without a process in it.
2) How do you enter a container.

If we could land the namespaces in the filesystem we could easily
persist them past the point where a process is present in one if we so
choose.

Entering a container would be a matter of replacing your current
namespaces mounts with namespace mounts take from the filesystem.

I expect performance would degrade in practice, but it is tempting
to implement it and run a benchmark and see if we can measure anything.

Eric
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Jun 19, 8:00 pm)
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Jun 19, 8:39 pm)
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Serge E. Hallyn, (Fri Jun 20, 7:50 am)
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Serge E. Hallyn, (Fri Jun 20, 7:53 am)
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Eric W. Biederman, (Fri Jun 20, 12:11 pm)
Re: [patch -mm 0/4] mqueue namespace, Cedric Le Goater, (Fri Aug 29, 2:46 am)