[PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support

Cedric Le Goater legoater at free.fr
Fri Mar 13 08:59:10 PDT 2009

Dan Smith wrote:
> DL> I guess it will be esay to implement with a nsproxy level counter.
> DL> Each time you unshare, the new nsproxy count is incremented.
> DL> Assuming the init_nsproxy is level 0, when the nsproxy counter is
> DL> > 1, the process is uncheckpointable.
> This should also be possible by just making sure that the nsproxy of
> the root process being checkpointed is the same as any of the
> children, correct?  That way we avoid having to modify the core
> nsproxy bits and can still reject any nested namespaces.

Daniel L, could we cleanup the patch we have on ns_group which filters
out the clone() done with the 'wrong' clone flags ? 



More information about the Containers mailing list