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

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at cs.columbia.edu):
> 
> 
> Dan Smith wrote:
> > SH> Well it forces restart to go through the established userspace
> > SH> API's when creating resources (in this case, tasks and namespaces)
> > SH> which means any existing security guarantees are leveraged.
> > 
> > That's a very valid point.  However, it still seems unbalanced to make
> > checkpoint a completely in-kernel process and restart an odd mix of
> > the two with potentially more confusing semantics and requirements.
> > 
> 
> There are other reasons to allow restart to be not fully symmetric
> with respect to checkpoint. For example, if you have a smart(er) user
> space application that wants to provide the restart some of the resources
> pre-constructed, allowing much flexibility (already requested by people)
> for the restart provdure (E.g., when doing distributed checkpoint, or
> when restarting a special device whose).
> 
> See my post:
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-March/016234.html

(Note that in Dan's next version, he did move unshare into userspace)

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