| To: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] A privileged pmcd co-process |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:45:10 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140624115737.GO8337@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1828964541.31278424.1403503516163.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <25800551.31292134.1403505090072.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m38ev7db9.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1690334551.32241023.1403584004294.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140624115737.GO8337@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | JOAn68DNenf4ToYui88a43YfqgNSZQ== |
| Thread-topic: | A privileged pmcd co-process |
----- Original Message ----- > > [...] envisioning the systemwide pmcd > and pmda processes switching to/from container namespaces to service > individual requests? Kind of like the linux_proc pmda doing temporary > setuid() downgrades? In the case where a container has been requested (by a client), that's a pretty good analogy, yes. It's kinda similar, but different in that for pmdaproc its not per-client-opt-in, whereas for namespaces it would be. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: QA test 828 has started failing, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Reminder: PCP developers conference call, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] A privileged pmcd co-process, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Next by Thread: | RFC - pmie "ruleset" extension, Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |