Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932308AbVLMOCu (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:02:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932318AbVLMOCt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:02:49 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:45771 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932308AbVLMOCt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:02:49 -0500 Message-ID: <439ED47D.3080504@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:02:37 -0500 From: JANAK DESAI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, chrisw@osdl.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, jamie@shareable.org, serue@us.ibm.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/9] unshare system call (take 3) References: <1134441527.14136.1.camel@hobbs.atlanta.ibm.com> <20051213112029.GA14653@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20051213112029.GA14653@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2329 Lines: 58 Ingo Molnar wrote: >* JANAK DESAI wrote: > > > >>Patches are organized as follows: >> >>1. Patch implementing system call handler sys_unshare. System call >> accepts all clone(2) flags but returns -EINVAL when attempt is >> made to unshare any shared context. >>2. Patch registering system call for i386 architecture >>3. Patch registering system call for powerpc architecture >>4. Patch registering system call for ppc architecture >>5. Patch registering system call for x86_64 architecture >>6. Patch implementing unsharing of filesystem information >>7. Patch implementing unsharing of namespace >>8. Patch implementing unsharing of vm >>9. Patch implementing unsharing of files >> >>Unsharing of singnal handlers is still not implemented. As far as I >>can tell, issues raised by Chris Wright regarding possible problems >>stemming from interaction of timers with unsharing of signal handlers, >>has been resolved by a 2.6.14 patch that fixed race in send_sigqueue >>with thread exit. However, I do want to understand the code better and >>experiment with it some more before implementing signal handler >>unsharing. If deemed ok, it would be easy to add that functionality. >> >> > >yes, it would be preferrable to have them all at once, once it hits >upstream. Also, would unsharing the thread group make sense? > > Ingo > > > Hope you mean all flags when you say "have them all at once" because I hoping to get unsharing of namespace, fs. files and vm in now then implementing other primitives in an incremental manner. Since the reorg, these incremental addition of functionality will not require ABI changes. Namespace and fs unsharing (in addition to shared tree) is needed for polyinstantiation, critical component for common criteria lspp evaluation. As far as unsharing of thread group, IMO implications of signal unsharing are even messier than signal handler unsharing. I can investigate it further if folks see usefulness of doing that. However, I was hoping to get namespace, fs, files and vm unsharing upstream first. -Janak - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/