> > > It's not obvious from this patch where this dependency comes
> > > from...why is SYSVIPC required? I'd like to not have to require
> > > IPC_NS either for devices.
> >
> > Yes, the patch is not highly dependent on SYSVIPC, but it will be
> > convenient if require it. I will update it to dr
> > > It's not obvious from this patch where this dependency comes
> > > from...why is SYSVIPC required? I'd like to not have to require
> > > IPC_NS either for devices.
> >
> > Yes, the patch is not highly dependent on SYSVIPC, but it will be
> > convenient if require it. I will update it to dr
+christ...@brauner.io
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:29 PM chouryzhou(周威) wrote:
...
>
> > It's not obvious from this patch where this dependency comes
> > from...why is SYSVIPC required? I'd like to not have to require IPC_NS
> > either for devices.
>
> Yes, the patch is not highly dependent on SYSVI
>> Hi
>> We are working for running android in container, but we found that binder
>> is
>> not isolated by ipc namespace. Since binder is a form of IPC and therefore
>> should
>> be tied to ipc namespace. With this patch, we can run more than one android
>> container on one host.
>> This pat
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:20 AM chouryzhou(周威) wrote:
>
> Hi
> We are working for running android in container, but we found that binder is
> not isolated by ipc namespace. Since binder is a form of IPC and therefore
> should
> be tied to ipc namespace. With this patch, we can run more than one
