Michael J Coss writes:
> On 3/18/2013 11:45 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> I will say what I have said elsewhere recently to ensure the idea
>> percolates. What can be implemented now without kernel support and
>> that is interesting is devtmpfs emulation. That is a tmpfs
>> filesystem inside th
On 3/18/2013 11:45 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I will say what I have said elsewhere recently to ensure the idea
> percolates. What can be implemented now without kernel support and
> that is interesting is devtmpfs emulation. That is a tmpfs filesystem
> inside the container to serve as /de
Serge Hallyn writes:
>> But getting back to the question of policy, does it make sense that the
>> way policy is implemented
>
> Policy is not implemented.
>
>> is that the all containers receive the events,
>> and container configuration determines what uevents should/can be
>> processed by t
> But getting back to the question of policy, does it make sense that the
> way policy is implemented
Policy is not implemented.
> is that the all containers receive the events,
> and container configuration determines what uevents should/can be
> processed by that container. Or should it be
--------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:19:27 -0400
> From: St?phane Graber
> Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] Dynamic devices
> To: lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Message-ID: <513e4a5f.3010...@ubuntu.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
...
> The short and rather usual reply to this is that we know we'll need a
> device namespace at some point. Exactly how it'll work is yet unknown
Yup.
> and it's never been high enough priority that anybody really worked on it.
>
> However I'm a b
On 03/11/2013 04:49 PM, Michael J Coss wrote:
> I know that this has probably been hashed over dozens of time but as far
> as I can tell udev still does not work properly in containers, neither
> OpenVZ nor LXC variants. Unfortunately, I really do have a need for
> dynamic devices, specifically so
