17:41:06 #startmeeting 2017-06-01 runtime-spec PR review 17:41:06 Meeting started Thu Jun 1 17:41:06 2017 UTC. The chair is wking. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:41:06 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:41:06 The meeting name has been set to '2017_06_01_runtime_spec_pr_review' 17:41:14 #topic 863 17:43:10 #link http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C99RationaleV5.10.pdf#page=18 17:44:34 #action wking to change "unspecified" -> 17:44:39 #action wking to change "unspecified" -> "ignored" 17:44:52 #topic 862 17:46:35 #topic 860 17:47:36 mrunalp: I think we should be consistent one way or the other (using cgroup-specified names or not) 17:47:46 crosbymichael: I think this change is good 17:48:02 crosbymichael: because memory and the other ones don't do this 17:48:20 #topic 858 17:49:08 crosbymichael: in the end, we'll probably want to delete all these references 17:49:25 #topic 854 17:52:01 He's following the pattern for process.user.uid (not a property on Windows) and process.capabilities (once we get back to having it not be a Windows property) 17:52:08 crosbymichael: so we are ok following that approach 17:52:15 mrunalp: I'll ask for a rebase 17:52:19 #topic 852 17:53:20 crosbymichael: I think we may want to remove the example on line 34 17:53:42 #action wking to remove the retrieved-resource example line 17:53:55 #topic 851 17:54:31 crosbymichael: needs a rebase 17:54:32 #topic 850 17:56:13 crosbymichael: I don't know what to do with the platform 17:56:21 mrunalp: mark it 1.0 and defer to the call? 17:56:23 crosbymichael: yeah 17:56:27 #topic 847 17:57:44 #topic 844 17:59:01 mrunalp: we haven't talked about optional runtime compilation flags 17:59:22 mrunalp: if you compile a runtime without support for something, how should the runtime handle those properties? 17:59:37 mrunalp: this is different from the underlying platform not supporting the property 18:00:04 crosbymichael: especially with SELinux modes. The runtime may support it but not enforce it 18:00:07 mrunalp: so close it? 18:00:14 crosbymichael: yeah, it's probably better to leave it as is 18:00:19 mrunalp: I'll close it 18:00:55 #topic 841 18:02:03 I talked with vbatts|work about this and #746 yesterday. He was going to file a comment about it, but hasn't let 18:04:43 crosbymichael: we should require values and not have defaults 18:05:59 crosbymichael: what do you think, mrunalp. Defaults or explicit? 18:06:07 mrunalp: I agree we should not have defaults 18:06:27 Do we want to talk about devices.allow and devices.deny? 18:06:52 crosbymichael (ealier): you can use -1 in the JSON to mean '*' 18:07:34 #action crosbymichael to file a replacement PR removing the wildcards (and maybe talkinb about devices.allow and devices.deny?) 18:07:38 #topic 840 18:09:15 #topic 838 18:12:03 crosbymichael: I just asked John Howard to review it 18:12:06 #topic835 18:12:08 #topic 835 18:13:10 POSIX rlimits are a separate commit, so I'm happy to spin them out into their own PR if you'd like 18:13:52 crosbymichael: It's bad to call it Linux-and-Solaris, because that will cause future issues if someone adds BSD 18:14:37 I'm fine using POSIX. Should I update process.user.uid too? That was the pattern I was following 18:15:39 crosbymichael: it makes sense to talk about POSIX 18:15:56 should I update the platform list to say that 'linux' and 'solaris' fall under POSIX? 18:16:03 mrunalp: should we have a 'posix' platform tag? 18:16:12 crosbymichael: I don't think that Go tags work that way 18:16:24 crosbymichael: POSIX is basically "not-windows" 18:17:02 So I'll adjust the other parts, and leave any platform-level POSIX mapping to you ;) 18:17:19 crosbymichael: we can start with the other parts for now. It's pretty clear to the spec audience what POSIX is 18:17:50 #action wking to consolidate the Markdown around POSIX 18:18:10 #action crosbymichael to comment around POSIX consolidation 18:18:19 #topic 834 18:18:31 mrunalp: I added a comment a while back trying to outline the possibilities 18:18:42 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/834#issuecomment-302579003 18:19:49 crosbymichael: the new wording sounds more straightforward to me 18:26:15 mrunalp: what do you want me to start closing? :-D 18:36:56 #action mrunalp too take out line 188 in #834 and add some comment about what cgroups must be joinsd 18:37:26 #topic 829 18:37:38 mrunalp: line 113 looks good if you can split it out 18:38:40 #action wking to split out the MAY from #829 18:38:57 crosbymichael: it's about decoupling the spec from implementaitons 18:41:43 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-tools/pull/354 18:49:30 #topic 825 18:49:34 crosbymichael: I asked him to rebase 18:49:41 #topic 811 18:49:47 I LGTMed it 18:50:02 #topic 735 18:50:08 crosbymichael: needs one more LGTM 18:50:11 #topic 809 18:53:34 crosbymichael: I'll ask for a rebase 18:54:05 #topic 680 18:54:36 crosbymichael: I don't know 18:57:12 mrunalp: you can ignore properties that aren't defined for your platform, and don't want to error out (that is more burden on the runtime) 18:57:16 crosbymichael: yeah 18:58:38 do we want a new line for properties that are only defined for other platforms? 18:58:42 crosbymichael: I think that would be more confusing 18:58:54 mrunalp: this seems ok, but I'd like to get tianon's opinion 19:00:13 crosbymichael: don't submit any more PRs until we're down to 5 open PRs 19:02:42 #endmeeting