From: vserver-list_at_austin.seaip.com
Date: Tue 29 Oct 2002 - 23:39:23 GMT
agreed on all points.
<drew>
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Justin M Kuntz wrote:
>
> I personally am already making use of security contexts starting at 2, and
> so I'd hate to see us forced to use > 1000, whether we want quota support
> or not. Ultimately I'd like a way to be found whereby the security context
> range is not directly tied to the quotas, but I realize there are only so
> many tradeoffs which can be made to keep the code clean.
>
> Thank you for all of your work on this!
>
> Justin
>
>
>
>
>
> Jacques
> Gelinas To: vserver_at_solucorp.qc.ca
> <jack_at_solucorp cc:
> .qc.ca> Fax to:
> Subject: Re: [vserver] Quotas
> 10/29/2002
> 04:52 PM
> Please respond
> to vserver
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:41:20 -0500, Dave wrote
>
> > For example I don't mind if the context has to be fixed for each
> > vserver, if this was the price for not having to patch userland tools.
> > If we combine the 16bit uid + 16bit context, there're still 64K servers
> > to be created before we run out of "virtuals" on the same machine.
> > Right?
>
> Btw, for those who want to play with special context (assigned by hand), I
> can
> change the kernel so on-the-fly security context are allocated from 1000
> and up
> making sure the one you have select by hand will only be used by this
> vserver.
>
> My idea about vserver quota was a little like that. Some uid remapping.
>
> I was adding another tricks. The quota of all users in a vserver was summed
> and
> enter as a special user. Each vserver would be associated with a special
> users. For
> example, if vserver foo is created, then user quota_foo would be created
> and
> it would be possible to limit globally a vserver just by limiting user
> quota_foo.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Jacques Gelinas <jack_at_solucorp.qc.ca>
> vserver: run general purpose virtual servers on one box, full speed!
> http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc
>
>
>
>
>