[Devel] Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] containers: introduction

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm at xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Or we could go ahead and fully implement it in procfs.  As you'd said
> > earlier, that really maps best into what we want.  Containerfs was
> > just much simpler and quicker to implement for demonstrating the semantics.
> 
> Well for what it is worth I just notices that nfs is currently and automounter
> that transparently unmounts it's children when you unmount it.  I don't think
> that is quite enough to split /proc into two but it does have some potential
> when it comes to new features.
> 
> Using itty bity purpose built file systems if there is an automounter for them
> because much easier for user space.

I'm not parsing the last sentence.

Are you suggesting that we may be able to stick with a custom fs,
using autofs to automount it if the symlink /proc/$$/container is
dereferenced while only a kernel mount of /containers exists?

I suppose a simpler solution is to not define /proc/$$/container,
but rather just let /container in the containerfs symlink to
the current process' container.  That way you can't reference
/containers/container unless containerfs is already mounted under
/containers, and we avoid the problem completely.

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers