Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:24:25 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:52:15 -0700 ebiederm@xmission.com (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. > > 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
Since a major change risks breaking lots of stuff you would need to have a complete test suite that could be run to show you didn't break anything.
-- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger - 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/
| |