Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.

"Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> 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
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Sam Vilain <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Hubertus Franke <[email protected]>
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: Alexey Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    • From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 04/29] missing includes in drivers/net/mv643xx_eth.c
• Next by Date: Re: Linux drivers management
• Previous by thread: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
• Next by thread: Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]