Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:52:15 -0700 |
| |
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > What I tried to do in a proof of concept long ago was to have > CLONE_NETNS mean that you get access to all the network devices, but > then you could drop/add them. Conceptually I prefer that to getting an > empty namespace, but I'm not sure whether there's any practical use > where you'd want that...
My observation was that the network stack does not come out cleanly as a namespace unless you adopt the rule that a network device belongs to exactly one network namespace.
With that rule dealing with the network stack is just a matter of making some currently global variables/data structures per container.
A pain to do the first round but easy to maintain once you are there and the logic of the code doesn't need to change.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |