*: Replace “user-specified code” with “user-specified program” #629
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wking
force-pushed
the
code-to-program
branch
from
b1aff30
to
9d15f95
Compare
In [1], I'd proposed replacing our old "user-specified process" with "user-specified code" to help distinguish between 'create' (cloning the container process) and 'start' (signaling the container process to execve or similar the user-specified $STUFF_FROM_THE_process_CONFIG). That PR was rejected, although the renaming proposed there had already landed via dd0cd21 (Add a 'status' field to our state struct, 2016-05-26, opencontainers#462). This PR attempts to find a common ground between "process" (preferred by maintainers in opencontainers#466 [2,3,4], but which I consider incorrect [5]) and "code" (which maintainers found confusing [3,4,6]). The Linux execve(2) says "program" and unpacks that to "a binary executable, or a script starting with a [shebang]" [7]. proc(5) documents /proc/[pid]/exe by talking about "the executed command" [8]. The POSIX exec docs call this the "process image" and talk about loading it from the "new process image file" (although they also sprinkle in a number of “program” references, apparently interchangeably with “process image”) [9]. POSIX formally defines "command" [11], "executable file" [12], and "program" [13]. The only reference to "process image" in the definitions is in the "executable file" entry. The "command" definition is focused on the shell, the "executable file" definition is focused on files, and the "program" definition talks about a "prepared sequence of instructions to the system", so "program" seems like the best fit. [1]: opencontainers#466 Subject: runtime: Replace "user-specified process" with "user-specified code" in 'create' [2]: opencontainers#466 (comment) [3]: opencontainers#466 (comment) [4]: opencontainers#466 (comment) [5]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_295 [6]: opencontainers#466 (comment) [7]: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/execve.2.html [8]: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/proc.5.html [9]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/exec.html [10]: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/ [11]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_104 [12]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_154 [13]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_306 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
force-pushed
the
code-to-program
branch
from
9d15f95
to
c45ffb4
Compare
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
|
LGTM |
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2017
…ecycle
After unifying the pre- and post-split hook lifecycle information
(this commit's first parent), merge master to pull in subsequent
mainline evolution.
Conflicts:
runtime.md
The conflicts were primarily due to:
* dd0cd21 (Add a 'status' field to our state struct, 2016-05-26, opencontainers#462).
* 98f0bdf (Add some related docs links, 2016-10-25, opencontainers#596).
* c45ffb4 (*: Replace "user-specified code" with "user-specified
program", 2016-11-18, opencontainers#629).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2017
…ecycle
After unifying the pre- and post-split hook lifecycle information
(this commit's first parent), merge master to pull in subsequent
mainline evolution.
Conflicts:
runtime.md
The conflicts were primarily due to:
* dd0cd21 (Add a 'status' field to our state struct, 2016-05-26, opencontainers#462).
* 98f0bdf (Add some related docs links, 2016-10-25, opencontainers#596).
* c45ffb4 (*: Replace "user-specified code" with "user-specified
program", 2016-11-18, opencontainers#629).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2017
…ecycle
After unifying the pre- and post-split hook lifecycle information
(this commit's first parent), merge master to pull in subsequent
mainline evolution.
Conflicts:
runtime.md
The conflicts were primarily due to:
* dd0cd21 (Add a 'status' field to our state struct, 2016-05-26, opencontainers#462).
* 98f0bdf (Add some related docs links, 2016-10-25, opencontainers#596).
* c45ffb4 (*: Replace "user-specified code" with "user-specified
program", 2016-11-18, opencontainers#629).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #466, I'd proposed replacing our old “user-specified process” with “user-specified code” to help distinguish between
create(cloning the container process) andstart(signaling the container process toexecveor similar the user-specified$STUFF_FROM_THE_process_CONFIG). That PR was rejected, although the renaming proposed there had already landed via #462.This PR attempts to find a common ground between “process” (preferred by maintainers in #466, but which I consider incorrect) and “code” (which maintainers found confusing). The Linux
execve(2)says “program” and unpacks that to “a binary executable, or a script starting with a [shebang]”. proc(5) documents/proc/[pid]/exeby talking about “the executed command”. The POSIX exec docs call this the “process image” and talk about loading it from the “new process image file” (although they also sprinkle in a number of “program” references, apparently interchangeably with “process image”).POSIX formally defines “command”, “executable file”, and “program”. The only reference to “process image” in the definitions is in the “executable file” entry. The “command” definition is focused on the shell, the “executable file” definition is focused on files, and the “program” definition talks about a “prepared sequence of instructions to the system”, so “program” seems like the best fit.