[PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: fix pid namespace bug

Eric W. Biederman ebiederm at xmission.com
Sat Jul 4 02:13:29 PDT 2009

Paul Menage <menage at google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Li Zefan (lizf at cn.fujitsu.com):
>>> Paul Menage wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan<lizf at cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
>>> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that
>>> > the namespace support in mainline was robust enough yet for people to
>>> > use them for virtual servers in production environments.
>> I don't know where the bar is for 'production environments', but I'd
>> have to claim that pid namespaces are there...
> Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user
> namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months
> back). Pid namespaces are useful for process migration (which is still
> under development) or virtual servers (for which user namespaces are
> pretty much essential). So I'm not sure quite what you'd use pid
> namespaces for yet.

I have pid namespaces in pretty heavy use already.

Inescapable process groups are quite handy.


More information about the Containers mailing list