[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:0.021 / U:10.792 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site