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

> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> 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 <shemminger@osdl.org>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-08 20:27    [W:0.140 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site