Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2006 05:37:21 +0100 | From | Herbert Poetzl <> | Subject | Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. |
| |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:52:15PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "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.
yep, that's what the first network virtualization for Linux-VServer aimed at, but found too complicated the second one uses 'pairs' of communicating devices to send between guests/host
> With that rule dealing with the network stack is just a matter of > making some currently global variables/data structures per container.
yep, like the universal loopback and so ...
> 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.
best, Herbert
> 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/
| |