Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030484AbWBHDgi (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:36:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030493AbWBHDgi (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:36:38 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:34250 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030484AbWBHDgh (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:36:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:36:33 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov , Hubertus Franke , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Sam Vilain , Rik van Riel , Kirill Korotaev , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clg@fr.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org, saw@sawoct.com, devel@openvz.org, Dmitry Mishin , Andi Kleen , Herbert Poetzl Subject: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. Message-ID: <20060208033633.GA8784@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <43E83E8A.1040704@vilain.net> <43E8D160.4040803@watson.ibm.com> <20060207201908.GJ6931@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <43E90716.4020208@watson.ibm.com> <43E92EDC.8040603@watson.ibm.com> <20060208004325.GA15061@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1714 Lines: 43 Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > Alexey Kuznetsov writes: > > > Hello! > > > >> >2) What is the syscall interface to create these namespaces? > >> > - Do we add clone flags? > >> > (Plan 9 style) > >> > >> Like that approach .. flexible .. particular when one has well specified > >> namespaces. > >> > >> > - Do we add a syscall (similar to setsid) per namespace? > >> > (Traditional unix style)? > >> > >> Where does that approach end .. what's wrong with doing it at clone() time ? > > > > That most of those namespaces need a special setup rather than a plain copy? > > > > F.e. what are you going to do with NETWORK namespace? The only valid thing > > to do is to prepare a new context and to configure its content (addresses, > > routing tables, iptables...) later. So that, in this case it is natural > > to inherit the context through clone() and to create new context > > with a separate syscall. > > With a NETWORK namespace what I implemented was that you get a empty > namespace with a loopback interface. > > But setting up the namespace from the inside is clearly the sane thing > todo. 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... -serge - 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/