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

Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]> writes:

> 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

Well you need the pairs of course, to communication between
the two stack ``instances''.

>> 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 ...

:)

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/

---

• References:
  • 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]>
  • 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: Herbert Poetzl <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: implement swap prefetching
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/20] Multiple instances of the process id namespace
• 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]