"Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> writes:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([email protected]):
>> This whole debate on network devices show up in multiple network namespaces
>> is just silly. The only reason for wanting that appears to be better
> management.
>
> A damned good reason.
Better management is a good reason. But constructing the management in
a way that hampers the implementation and confuses existing applications is
a problem.
Things are much easier if namespaces are completely independent.
Among other things the semantics are clear and obvious.
> Clearly we want the parent namespace to be able
> to control what the child can do. So whatever interface a child gets,
> the parent should be able to somehow address. Simple iptables rules
> controlling traffic between it's own netdevice and the one it hands it's
> children seem a good option.
That or we setup the child and then drop CAP_NET_ADMIN.
>> We have deeper issues like can we do a reasonable implementation without a
>> network device showing up in multiple namespaces.
>
> Isn't that the same issue?
I guess I was thinking from the performance and cleanliness point of
view.
>> If we can get layer 2 level isolation working without measurable overhead
>> with one namespace per device it may be worth revisiting things. Until
>> then it is a side issue at best.
>
> Ok, and in the meantime we can all use the network part of the bsdjail
> lsm? :)
If necessary. But mostly we concentrate on the fundamentals and figure
out what it takes to take the level 2 stuff working.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
