On Tue, 9 May 2006, Max Khon wrote:
Yes, there seems to be an awful lot of noise being made about the fact that
the system does, in fact, work exactly as documented, and that the
configuration being complained about is one that is specifically documented
as being unsupported and undesirable.
As commented elsewhere in this thread, currently, there is no
virtualization support for System V IPC in the FreeBSD Jail implementation.
That may change if/when someone implements it. Until it's implemented, it
isn't going to be there, and the system won't behave as though it's there
no matter how much jumping up and down is done.
sysvipc has been implemented once, but it has been decided that it adds
unnecessary bloat. That's sad.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind this statement. Could you direct
me to the implementation, and at the specific claim that it adds unnecessary
bloat? As far as I know, no implementation of jail support for system v ipc
has ever been rejected on the basis that it adds bloat -- all discussion about
it has centered on the fact that it is, in fact, a very difficult technical
problem to solve, which requires careful consideration of the approach and
tradeoffs, and that that careful consideration has not yet bene done.
Robert N M Watson
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
