Re: [PATCH 1/9] nsproxy: Introduce nsproxy

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Al Viro (viro@ftp.linux.org.uk):
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:11:29PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Introduce the nsproxy struct.  Doesn't do anything yet, but has it's
> > own lifecycle pretty much mirrorring the fs namespace.
> > 
> > Subsequent patches will move the namespace struct into the nsproxy.
> > Then as more namespaces are introduced, such as utsname, they can
> > be added to the nsproxy as well.
> 
> Is there any reason why those can't be simply part of namespace?  I.e.
> be carried by the stuff mounted in standard places...

The argument has been that it is desirable to be able to unshare these
namespaces - uid, pid, network, sysv, utsname, fs-namespace -
separately.  Are you talking about having these all be part of a single
namespace unshared all at once (and stored in struct namespace)?  Or am
I misunderstandimg you entirely?

Andi Kleen (I believe) thinks it should be like that, all or nothing.  I
think Herbert Poetzl had current examples where vserver is used to
unshare just pieces, i.e. apache unsharing network but sharing global
pidspace.

thanks,
-serge