In order to use libcontainer as the basis for a new Warden backend, it needs upgrading. The requirements for a Container API over and above what libcontainer already provides are:
1. Multiple user processes: It must be possible to run multiple user processes in the same Container, either serially or in parallel. All user processes must run in the Container’s namespaces and control groups (so that they are all subject to the same isolation requirements and resource limits). User processes are peers in the sense that they share a common parent and one may terminate without terminating any others.
2. Container life cycle: It must be possible to create a new Container with no user processes. A Container should continue to exist after user processes have terminated.
3. Dynamic reconfiguration: It must be possible to reconfigure the Container after it has been created. There are some fundamental limitations in what can be reconfigured, but these must be kept to a bare minimum. In particular, it must be possible to reconfigure the Container’s control groups and network settings.
4. Container file system: It must be possible to share a single read-only root file system across multiple Container instances. A Container’s file system must be updatable and any updates made in one Container instance must not be visible to other Container instances.
5. Copying and streaming files: It must be possible to copy files and directories between the host and Container file systems. It must also be possible to stream files from the Container’s file system back to the host’s, for example to tail a log file.
Some of these requirements turn out to be beyond the scope of libcontainer as envisaged by its maintainers. In particular, since libcontainer's only consumer is Docker and Docker deals with file system layers, libcontainer avoids managing the read-write layer necessary to satisfy requirement 4. Requirement 5 is closely related to requirement 4.
Similarly, naming and managing collections of Container instances is deemed to be out of scope for libcontainer. So we envisage building an "ideal" Container API at a higher level than libcontainer and reusing libcontainer to provide the core function for a single Container:
It's conceivable that in the future when libcontainer has more consumers, it could step up to requirements 4 and 5, in which case it may be possible to move some of our higher level components down into libcontainer.
With the scope of libcontainer clarified, we are producing another revision of our API proposal which should be ready tomorrow. The first version was captured in a Google document; the next version will be a pull request.