3 ms·
I think it's fairly important to say that a container is a process tree, not necessarily a single process. A lot of things wouldn't behave properly if a forked
by teraflop 5y ago
I think it's fairly important to say that a container is a process tree, not necessarily a single process. A lot of things wouldn't behave properly if a forked child process wasn't part of the same container as its parent.
(Of course, it might not truly be a tree either, because you can use tools like nsenter to put additional processes into the PID namespace without them being children of the container's PID 1. But a tree is the common case.)
- tinalumfoil 5y agoI would argue that the virtualization aspect is more important than the processiness of a container. Sure it's a process but it's a process that you've carefully controlled the resources it can access. You've put it in its own network namespace, you've rebuilt it's filesystem so it sees an entirely different / than the rest of the system, etc etc. If the process isn't checking, you can make it behave like it's in its own little world, with it's own kernel. Because of that, it's much more predictable than just a process. Saying it's a process is mostly correct, and saying it's a process tree is a guess even more correct I think they both miss the point.