Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 00:39:59 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: menage@google.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com,
       vatsa@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com,
       svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com, cpw@sgi.com,
       ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       containers@lists.osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, rohitseth@google.com,
       devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers
Message-ID: <20070530073959.GC6909@holomorphy.com>
References: <20070529130104.461765000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070530001455.45cf1dc5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070530001455.45cf1dc5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 755
Lines: 17

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:14:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So how do we do this?
> Is there any sneaky way in which we can modify the kernel so that this new
> code gets exercised more?  Obviously, tossing init into some default
> system-wide container would be a start.  But I wonder if we can be
> sneakier - for example, create a new container on each setuid(), toss the
> task into that.  Or something along those lines?

How about a container for each thread group, pgrp, session, and user?


-- wli
-
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/