Roadmap for features planed for containers where and Some future features ideas.

Eric W. Biederman ebiederm at
Mon Jul 21 18:28:43 PDT 2008

"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm at> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm at> wrote:
>> "Peter Dolding" <oiaohm at> writes:
>>>  I would like to see if
>>> something equal to this is on the roadmap in particular.   Being able
>>> to run solaris and aix closed source binaries contained would be
>>> useful.
>> There have been projects to do this at various times on linux.  Having
>> a namespace dedicated to a certain kind of application is no big deal.
>> Someone would need to care enough to test and implement it though.
>>> Other useful feature is some way to share a single process between PID
>>> containers as like a container bridge.  For containers used for
>>> desktop applications not having a single X11 server  interfacing with
>>> video card is a issue.
>> X allows network connections, and I think unix domain sockets will work.
>> The latter I need to check on.
> Does to a point until you see that local X11 is using shared memory
> for speed.   Hardest issue is getting GLX working.

That is easier in general.  Don't unshare the sysvipc namespace.
Or share the mount of /dev/shmem at least for the file X cares about.

>> The pid namespace is well defined and no a task will not be able
>> to change it's pid namespace while running.  That is nasty.
> Ok if that is imposable to extremely risky.
> What about a form of a proxy pid in the pid namespace proxying
> application chatter between 1 name space to another.  Applications
> being the bridge if its not possible to do it invisible to application
> could be made aware of it.   So they can provide shared memory and the
> like across pid namespaces. But only where they have a activated proxy
> to do there bidding.  This also allows applications to maintain there
> own internal secuirty between namespaces.
> Ie application is 1 pid number in its source container and virtual pid
> numbers in the following containers.  Symbolic linking at task level
> yes a little warped.  Yes this will annoying mean a special set of
> syscalls and a special set of capabilities and restrictions.  Like PID
> containers starting up forbidding proxy pid's or allowing them.
> If I am thinking right that avoids not be able to change it's pid.
> Instead sending and receiving the messages you need in the other name
> space threw a small proxy.   Yes I know that will cost some
> performance.

Proxy pids don't actually do anything for you, unless you want to send
signals.  Because all of the namespaces are distinct.  So even at the
best of it you can see the X server but it still can't use your
network sockets or ipc shm.

Better is working out the details on how to manipulate multiple
sysvipc and network namespaces from a single application.  Mostly
that is supported now by the objects there is just no easy way
of dealing with it.

> Basically want to setup a neat universal container way of handling
> stuff like without having
> to go network and hopefully in a way that limitations don't have to
> exist since messages are really only be sent threw 1 X11 server to 1
> driver system.  Only thing is really sending the correct messages to
> the correct place.   There will most likely be other services were a
> single entity at times is preferred.   Worst out come is if proxying
> .so is required.

Yes.  I agree that is essentially desirable.  Given that I think
high end video card actually have multiple hardware contexts that
can be mapped into different user space processes there may be other
ways of handling this.

Ideally we can find a high performance solution to X that also gives
us good isolation and migration properties.  Certainly something to talk
about tomorrow in the conference.


More information about the Containers mailing list