[RFC][PATCH] Do not set /proc inode->pid for non-pid-related inodes

[Cedric Le Goater]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> So how do you see us enforcing pid1's existance?  Somehow keep it from
>> fully exiting, or just kill all the processes in it's namespace if it
>> exits?

what about a kthread that would be spawned when a task is cloned in an 
unshared pid namespace ? This is an extra cost in term of tasks.

> Killing all other processes in the namespace when pid1 exits is what
> I implemented last time around.

this looks like a sane thing to do.

C.