Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> writes:
> 
>>>Currently I don't fold the namesapce into the hash so multiple
>>>namespaces using the same socket name will be guaranteed a hash
>>>collision.
>>
>>
>>That doesn't sound like a good thing :) Is there a reason for
>>not avoiding the collisions?
> 
> 
> Two reasons.  Minimizing the size of the changes to make review
> easier, and I don't know if hash collisions are likely in practice
> or if they matter.  I don't believe we can't physically collide and
> have the same inode because we make a node in the filesystem.  The
> abstract domain is local to linux and so people don't use it as much.
> 
> All of which boils down to.  I don't see it matter a heck of a lot
> especially initially.  So I did the traditional unix thing and started
> with a simple and stupid implementation.  But it didn't quite feel
> right to me either so I documented it.
> 
> Whipping up a patch to take the namespace into account in mkname
> doesn't look to hard though.


It doesn't look like it would increase patch size significantly
(about 4 more changed lines), but it could of course be done in
a follow-up patch.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers