On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Oren Laadan writes:
>
> > Hi Serge,
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Serge Hallyn >wrote:
> >
> >> Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@cellrox.com):
> >> > Hi everyone!
> >> >
> >> > We [1] have been working on bringing lightweight vi
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amir Goldstein writes:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > If we can get people to take a quick look at the code before LPC
> > th
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Jeremy Andrus writes:
>
> > On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
> >
> >> Janne Karhunen writes:
> >>
> >>> That being said, is there a valid reason why binder is part of device
> >>> namespace here instead of IPC?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael J Coss (michael.c...@alcatel-lucent.com):
> > I've been looking at this problem for some time to help solve my very
> > specific use case. In our case we are using containers to provide
> > individual "desktops" to a number
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <
gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:34:54PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > So the big issues for a device namespace to solve are filtering which
> > devices a container has access to and being able to dynamicall
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amir Goldstein writes:
>
> > What we really like to see is a setns() style API that can be used to
> > add a device in the context of a namespace in either a "shared" or
> > "private" mode.
