Re: question: pid space semantics.

[Eric W. Biederman]

Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 11:43 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The question:
>>   If we could add additional pid values in different pid spaces to a
>>   process with a syscall upon demand would that lead to an
>>   implementation everyone could use? 
>
> So, you'd basically only allocate the cross-namespace pids when you
> needed to do some kind of cross-namespace management?

Yes, or setup a parent/child relationship.  So I think the first
process in a container would always get two pids.

> pid_t alloc_local_pid(container_handle, pid_t pid_inside_container)

That is the idea.

I actually expect the implementation to look very much different.
To me the nice piece of this concept is that it allows all pids
to local to a pid space while still be able to talk to remote
processes.

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/