On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:33:48PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Something to examine here is that if both network devices and sockets
> are tagged does that still allow implicit network namespace passing.
I think avoiding implicit network namespace passing expresses more
power/flexibility plus it would make things clearer to what
container/namespace a given network resource belongs too.
>From our experience with an implementation of network containers [Virtual
Routing for ipv4/ipv6, with a complete isolation between containers where ip
addresses can overlap...], there is some problem domain in which you cannot
afford to duplicate a process/daemon in each container [a big process for
instance, scalability w.r.t. number of containers etc]
By having a proper namespace tag per socket, this can be solved by allowing
a process running in the host context to create sockets in that namespace
than moving them to the target guest namespaces [via a special setsockopt
for instance or unix domain socket as you said].
Regards
>
> Eric
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
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]
