Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:08:50 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Alex Lyashkov <shadow@psoft.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: jail extensions Message-ID: <20060607160850.GB18940@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200606070819.04301.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <1149610678.4074.42.camel@berloga.shadowland> <448633F2.7030902@elischer.org> <20060607095824.W53690@fledge.watson.org> <200606070819.04301.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--oC1+HKm2/end4ao3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 08:19:03AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:59, Robert Watson wrote: > >=20 > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Julian Elischer wrote: > >=20 > > >> I'd like to clarify Alex's point a bit: he wants to know his work is= =20 > > >> acceptable by the project and could be merged. It's obvious it's al= most=20 > > >> impossible to maintain that outside of the tree. > > >>=20 > > > I'd like to see him merge his project with Marco's . If so then I'd b= e=20 > more=20 > > > than happy to see this stuff come in once it reaches a certain level = of=20 > > > maturity. > > > > > > Marco and I have been going over some possible macros that could be u= sed=20 > to=20 > > > help with a lot of this and if the macros were used then some of the= =20 > changes=20 > > > could come in quite early as they would compile out to NOPs for anyon= e not=20 > > > using the changes. ( and provide an easy target for removal if it=20 > eventually=20 > > > doesn't complete). > >=20 > > FYI, Marko was at the FreeBSD developer summit at BSDCan, and has expre= ssed=20 > > the intent of updating his patches to 6.x/HEAD, so I think there's=20 > definitely=20 > > room for collaboration here. >=20 > What did you think about Alex's idea of a 'prison0' to for all "non-jaile= d"=20 > processes so that lots of things can move into 'struct prison' and not=20 > require as much special casing (though then there would be a different se= t of=20 > special cases I guess as prison0 would be the only prison that could crea= te=20 > child prisons, etc.?) It's not clear to me that we want to use the same containers to control all resouces since you might want a set of jails sharing IPC resources or being allocated a slice of processor time to divide amongst them selves if we had a hierarchical scheduler. That said, using a single prison structure could do this if we allowed the administrator to specifiy a hierarchy of prisons and not necessicairly enclose all resources in all prisons. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --oC1+HKm2/end4ao3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEhvoRXY6L6fI4GtQRAu1zAJ9uEPD0Qgjc6lCkwLKtPHz8GaZ/bACcD3+g o4XWkMZrftZoZ0K5qqrweK0= =Xglg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oC1+HKm2/end4ao3--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060607160850.GB18940>