On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:52:15 -0700
[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> "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
Since a major change risks breaking lots of stuff you would need to have
a complete test suite that could be run to show you didn't break anything.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
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]
