OpenVZ Forum: Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction

Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. [message #1406 is a reply to message #1404]

Wed, 08 February 2006 02:49

ebiederm
Messages: 1354
Registered: February 2006

Senior Member

Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru> writes:

> Hello!
>
>> >2) What is the syscall interface to create these namespaces?
>> > - Do we add clone flags?
>> > (Plan 9 style)
>>
>> Like that approach .. flexible .. particular when one has well specified
>> namespaces.
>>
>> > - Do we add a syscall (similar to setsid) per namespace?
>> > (Traditional unix style)?
>>
>> Where does that approach end .. what's wrong with doing it at clone() time ?
>
> That most of those namespaces need a special setup rather than a plain copy?
>
> F.e. what are you going to do with NETWORK namespace? The only valid thing
> to do is to prepare a new context and to configure its content (addresses,
> routing tables, iptables...) later. So that, in this case it is natural
> to inherit the context through clone() and to create new context
> with a separate syscall.

With a NETWORK namespace what I implemented was that you get a empty
namespace with a loopback interface.

But setting up the namespace from the inside is clearly the sane thing
todo.

> Seems, only PID space needs to be setup at clone time. All the rest of
> suggested namespaces are more convenient to change with separate syscalls.

Actually I think I can setup a PID space in a syscall as well.
It is a little odd that your session, and process group change but since
I was keeping 2 pids on the PID space leader I could easily do it.
The fact that getpid() would start returning 1 might be confusing to a some
processes though so clone seems to be the natural time to do it.

> I would suggest to combine both approaches. Those namespaces, which can be
> naturally copied while clone() (f.e. the best example is already existing
> CLONE_NEWNS) deserve a clone() flag. The rest are preserved through clone()
> and forked and configured later.

Sounds reasonable. We make the decision on a case by case base whatever
make sense for the patch and the namespace.

The only real advantage to clone is you can create a bunch of namespaces
all in one shot. Of course that makes sys_clone a little slower.

Eric

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		[PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Kirill Korotaev on Mon, 06 February 2006 21:55
		[PATCH 2/4] Virtualization/containers: CONFIG_CONTAINER By: Kirill Korotaev on Mon, 06 February 2006 22:10
		[PATCH 3/4] Virtualization/containers: UID hash By: Kirill Korotaev on Mon, 06 February 2006 22:15
		[PATCH 4/4] Virtualization/containers: uts name By: Kirill Korotaev on Mon, 06 February 2006 22:20
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Dave Hansen on Mon, 06 February 2006 23:00
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Tue, 07 February 2006 12:22
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 03:34
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Rik van Riel on Tue, 07 February 2006 03:40
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Sam Vilain on Tue, 07 February 2006 06:30
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Tue, 07 February 2006 11:49
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 14:31
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 15:42
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Tue, 07 February 2006 16:16
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 17:20
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Sam Vilain on Tue, 07 February 2006 22:43
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Tue, 07 February 2006 16:57
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: serue on Tue, 07 February 2006 20:19
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Tue, 07 February 2006 20:46
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 22:00
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Tue, 07 February 2006 22:19
		The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 22:06
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Hubertus Franke on Tue, 07 February 2006 23:35
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Alexey Kuznetsov on Wed, 08 February 2006 00:43
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 02:49
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: serue on Wed, 08 February 2006 03:36
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 05:23
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Hubertus Franke on Wed, 08 February 2006 14:40
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 17:46
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 22:28
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: serue on Wed, 08 February 2006 15:17
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: serue on Wed, 08 February 2006 18:03
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: dev on Mon, 20 February 2006 12:08
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Herbert Poetzl on Mon, 20 February 2006 12:40
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: dev on Mon, 20 February 2006 14:25
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Herbert Poetzl on Mon, 20 February 2006 15:16
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Andi Kleen on Mon, 20 February 2006 15:17
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 03:52
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Herbert Poetzl on Wed, 08 February 2006 04:37
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 04:46
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Herbert Poetzl on Wed, 08 February 2006 04:56
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: serue on Wed, 08 February 2006 14:38
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Hubertus Franke on Wed, 08 February 2006 14:51
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: dev on Wed, 08 February 2006 15:34
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Hubertus Franke on Wed, 08 February 2006 15:57
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Herbert Poetzl on Wed, 08 February 2006 19:02
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 16:48
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Hubertus Franke on Wed, 08 February 2006 18:31
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Dave Hansen on Wed, 08 February 2006 20:21
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: serue on Wed, 08 February 2006 21:22
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Thu, 09 February 2006 05:41
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: Kyle Moffett on Thu, 09 February 2006 04:45
		Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. By: ebiederm on Thu, 09 February 2006 22:25
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Sam Vilain on Tue, 07 February 2006 22:58
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Tue, 07 February 2006 23:18
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 05:03
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Wed, 08 February 2006 14:13
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Wed, 08 February 2006 15:42
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 16:39
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Kevin Fox on Wed, 08 February 2006 02:08
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Wed, 08 February 2006 15:35
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 17:16
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Dave Hansen on Wed, 08 February 2006 20:43
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Wed, 08 February 2006 21:04
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: dev on Tue, 07 February 2006 12:12
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 14:06
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Rik van Riel on Tue, 07 February 2006 14:52
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Tue, 07 February 2006 15:13
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Sam Vilain on Wed, 08 February 2006 01:16
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Paul Jackson on Wed, 08 February 2006 04:21
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Thu, 09 February 2006 00:24
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Jeff Dike on Thu, 09 February 2006 02:18
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Thu, 09 February 2006 03:16
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Hubertus Franke on Thu, 09 February 2006 16:38
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Jeff Dike on Thu, 09 February 2006 17:47
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: Sam Vilain on Thu, 09 February 2006 22:09
		Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction By: ebiederm on Thu, 09 February 2006 21:56

Previous Topic:	Versioning issue on vzquota-3.0.0-2
Next Topic:	[NET][IA64] Unaligned access in sk_run_filter

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Thu Oct 09 23:30:59 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.17014 seconds