[PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support
daniel.lezcano at free.fr
Fri Mar 13 09:04:53 PDT 2009
Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> 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