[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] Do not set /proc inode->pid for non-pid-related inodes

[Cedric Le Goater]

[ long long thread ]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater <clg at fr.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>>>> what about a kthread that would be spawned when a task is cloned in an 
>>>> unshared pid namespace ? This is an extra cost in term of tasks.
>>> If you use kernel_thread this can happen. (Die kernel_thread).
>>> If you use the kthread interface keventd will be the parent process and
>>> we won't have problems.  
>> so is it something acceptable for mainline ? I think openvz has such
>> a thread doing the reaping.
> 
> Please clarify.  Is what acceptable for mainline?

[ As i kind of jumped in the thread, i did some digging in the thread to 
  see where these comments were coming from. ] 

Correct me if i got something wrong : the initial question is how do we 
handle the pid namespace exit and if we mandate task with pid == 1 to be 
the last task to die ? 

So I suggested to have a kthread be pid == 1 for each new pid namespace. 
the kthread can do the killing of all tasks if needed and will die when
the refcount on the pid namespace == 0.

Would such a (rough) design be acceptable for mainline ?

C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers