Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:02:43 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Clone PTS namespace |
| |
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes: > > > > Heh, well I tried several approaches - adding tag_ops to kset, to ktype, > > etc. Finally ended up just calling sysfs_enable_tagging on > > /sys/kernel/uids when that is created. It's now working perfectly. > > Sounds good. > > >> I suspect since you are working on this and I seem to be stuck > >> in molasses at the moment it makes sense to figure out what it > >> will take to handle the uid namespace before pushing these > >> patches again. > > > > I had ported your patches to 2.6.25, but Benjamin in the meantime ported > > them to 2.6.25-mm1. Since that's closer to the -net tree it's a more > > useful port, so I'll let him post his patchset. Then I'll send the > > userns patch on top of that. While I'm not actually able to send > > network traffic over a veth dev (I probably am still not setting it up > > right), I am able to pass veth devices into network namespaces, and the > > user namespaces are properly handled. > > > > I believe Benjamin did notice a problem with some symlinks not existing, > > and I think we want one more patch on top of yours removing the > > hold_net() from sysfs_mount, which I don't think was what you really > > wanted to do. By simply removing that, if all tasks in a netns go away, > > the netns actually goes away and a lookup under a bind-mounted copy of > > its /sys/class/net is empty. > > I will have to look, I need to refresh myself on where all of this code is. > I think hold_net was what I wanted. A record that there is a user > but not something that will keep the network namespace from going away. > > Essentially hold_net should be a debugging check rather then a > real limitation.
Ah, I see, I assumed it actually pinned it. Sorry, never mind then :)
-serge
> > Anyway the patches should be hitting the list next week. > > Cool. We can figure out what we need to do to merge them from > there. > > >> Taking a quick look and having a clue what we will need to > >> do for a theoretical device namespace is also a possibility. > > > > I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the kobject/class/sysfs/device > > relationships yet to comment on that. It doesn't look like it should > > really be a problem, though simply adding tags to every directory > > under /sys/class (/sys/class/tty, /sys/class/usb_device, etc) doesn't > > seem like necessarily the nicest way to go... > > True. And the goal is something maintainable. There are still a lot > of implications of a device namespace left unexamined so we shall see. > > Eric
| |