OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation. [message #1418 is a reply to message #1406] Wed, 08 February 2006 03:36 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
serue is currently offline  serue
Messages: 750
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> 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.

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...

-serge
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Versioning issue on vzquota-3.0.0-2
Next Topic: [NET][IA64] Unaligned access in sk_run_filter
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Oct 09 23:31:13 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.10213 seconds