Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>]

Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,

Hi Andrey,

> It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion.
> Although I wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :).

devel@openvz.org ?

> When a device presents an skb to the protocol layer, it needs to know to which
> namespace this skb belongs.
> Otherwise you would never get rid of problems with bind: what to do if device
> eth1 is visible in namespace1, namespace2, and root namespace, and each
> namespace has a socket bound to 0.0.0.0:80?

Exact. But, the idea was to retrieve the namespace from the routes.

IMHO, I think there are roughly 2 network isolation implementation:

	- make all network ressources private to the namespace

	- keep a "flat" model where network ressources have a new identifier 
which is the network namespace pointer. The idea is to move only some 
network informations private to the namespace (eg port range, stats, ...)


  Daniel.
-
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/