Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 12:44 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Now Dave and I were just talking about actually using the
>> init process in a pspace to do administration from outside.
>> For instance, the userspace code, in /sbin/pspaceinit, which
>> runs as (pspace 2, pid 1), could open a pipe with it's parent
>> (pspace1, pid 234).  pid 234 can then ask the init process to
>> do things like list processes, kill a process, and maybe even
>> recursively talk to the init process in pspace 3.
>
> This would require a much smarter init, and that a child be nice,
> cooperate and pass on what is requested of it if it's nested children
> are to be killed.  If a child decided to be mean and ignore its parent's
> requests, the parent can always just kill the child.

As for that.  When I mad that suggestion to Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> 
his only concern was that a smart init might be too heavy weight for 
lightweight vserver.  Generally I like the idea.

> (Read the last sentence, and in case you're wondering, no I don't have
> any children in real life)

Speaking of that.  One of my coworkers mentioned that it is unfortunate
that our names don't have the double meaning.  So it was suggested we
call them 

Speaking of that problematic naming.  One of my coworkers mentioned that
it is unfortunate that our set of names does not have a double meaning.
After that the suggestion came up to call them families, instead of guest
or pidspaces.  Although I guess calling them guests is about as bad :)

Eric