[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:52:15 -0700 (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> "Serge E. Hallyn" <> writes:
> >
> > 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...
> My observation was that the network stack does not come out cleanly
> as a namespace unless you adopt the rule that a network device
> belongs to exactly one network namespace.
> With that rule dealing with the network stack is just a matter of making
> some currently global variables/data structures per container.
> A pain to do the first round but easy to maintain once you are there
> and the logic of the code doesn't need to change.
> Eric

Since a major change risks breaking lots of stuff you would need to have
a complete test suite that could be run to show you didn't break anything.

Stephen Hemminger <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-08 20:27    [W:0.084 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site