Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespacesimplementation.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:52:15 -0700
ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/