From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
To: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>,
serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, frankeh@watson.ibm.com,
mrmacman_g4@mac.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] VPIDs: vpid/pid conversion in VPID enabled case
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:02:29 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060203140229.GA16266@ms2.inr.ac.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43E35105.3080208@fr.ibm.com>
Hello!
> And how bad would it be for openvz to move away from the vpid approach ? do
> you have any plan for it ?
Frankly speaking, using pair (container, pid) was the first thing, which
we did (year ago), so that from viewpoint of core the switch
is not a big deal. :-) However, it was rejected by several reasons:
1. Replacing all the references to pid with pair (container, pid) is quite
expensive. F.e. it is possible that a task has a pid from one container,
but it is in process group and/or session of another container,
and its controlling terminal owner by another container. Grr..
So, the structures are bloated, the functions get additional arguments.
And all this is for no real purpose, the functionality comparing with
VPID is even reduced.
2. It is very inconvenient not to see processes inside VPS from host system.
To do ps, strace, gdb etc. we have to move inside VPS. With VPID approach I can
gdb even "init" process of VPS in a way invisible to VPS, see?
Well, and main problem is that gui administration and monotoring tools,
which were existing for ages stop to work and require a major rewrite.
Does it answer to question about plans for moving away?
To summarize: (container, pid) approach looks clean and consistent.
At first sight I loved it, even thought it will solve some of problems
with inter-container access control. But the devil is in details,
I have to learn this again and again: access control must be separate
of real engine, otherwise you get something which does not satisfy anyone.
> I've also seen that openvz introduces a 'vps_info_t' object, which looks
> like a some virtualization backend. I'm not sure to have well understood
> this framework. What the idea behind it ? is it to handle different
> implementation of the virtualization ?
openvz _is_ a complete implementation of virtualization (http://openvz.org),
dealing with... essentially, everything, including even things like
iptables. The VPID patch is just a small part of the whole openvz,
and vps_info_t is just a part of large structure containing data essential
for this problem.
Alexey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-03 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-02 15:54 [RFC][PATCH] VPIDs: Virtualization of PIDs (OpenVZ approach) Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 16:16 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] VPIDs: add VPID config option Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 16:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] VPIDs: pid/vpid conversions Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-08 20:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-02-08 23:53 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-09 0:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-02-09 1:11 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-09 1:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-02-09 2:51 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-02-09 9:55 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-09 19:22 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-02-20 14:57 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-20 16:56 ` Herbert Poetzl
2006-02-21 16:19 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-21 23:17 ` Herbert Poetzl
2006-02-02 16:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] VPIDs: fork modifications Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 20:08 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-02 16:26 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] VPIDs: vpid macros in non-VPID case Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 16:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] VPIDs: vpid/pid conversion in VPID enabled case Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 17:05 ` Dave Hansen
2006-02-02 19:29 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-02-03 10:52 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-03 12:48 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-03 14:02 ` Alexey Kuznetsov [this message]
2006-02-03 16:25 ` Dave Hansen
2006-02-06 11:24 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-03 17:05 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-06 9:48 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-06 14:51 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-02-06 15:51 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2006-02-06 16:24 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-02-07 9:46 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-07 11:44 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-07 12:59 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-07 9:15 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-03 14:05 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-03 15:40 ` Cedric Le Goater
2006-02-03 16:28 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 16:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] VPIDs: small proc VPID export Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-02 16:33 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] VPIDs: required VPS interface for VPIDs Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-03 3:01 ` [RFC][PATCH] VPIDs: Virtualization of PIDs (OpenVZ approach) Herbert Poetzl
2006-02-03 10:30 ` Kirill Korotaev
2006-02-03 12:45 ` Alexey Kuznetsov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060203140229.GA16266@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--to=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=clg@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=dev@openvz.org \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=frankeh@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®