Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965199AbWBHEhX (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:37:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965200AbWBHEhX (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:37:23 -0500 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([212.16.62.50]:9409 "EHLO mail.13thfloor.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965199AbWBHEhW (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:37:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 05:37:21 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hubertus Franke , 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 Subject: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. Message-ID: <20060208043721.GA26692@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hubertus Franke , 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 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> <20060208033633.GA8784@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1382 Lines: 36 On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:52:15PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Serge E. Hallyn" 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/