Re: Net containers config and usage

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org):
> chris-SqNQQPNds68nxqbYAscKCQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >   
> >> Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>     
> >>> As far as I recall, if you have sysfs active and use the sysfs patch to
> >>> let you configure both sysfs and network namespaces, you can only move
> >>> virtual interfaces into a network namespace.
> >>>
> >>> Guenter
> >>>  
> >>>       
> >> Ah ! yes, you are right :)
> >>
> >> The current upstream implementation allowing sysfs and netns to coexist 
> >> together has one restriction, the physical network devices can not be 
> >> moved if sysfs is enabled in the kernel. This is why Chris can not move 
> >> the physical network device with this version of the kernel.
> >> This restriction will be set until the sysfs per namespace is fully 
> >> supported.
> >>
> >> This restriction does not exist with with the previous kernel version 
> >> with the sysfs per namespace patchset.
> >>
> >> -- Daniel
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > Ah, great, thanks to all for your help on this.
> > Do you have any rough estimate when the support for sysfs per namespace will
> >   
> The sysfs per namespace has been rejected because of some design 
> problems related with the sysfs itself.
> Perhaps Eric can tell more about that...

Chris, in the meantime, is using the physical device an absolute
necessity, or could you work around it for now using a veth tunnel?

Even if Eric has been working on the sysfs locking rework quietly
the last few months, i'd expect several months of back-and-forth
trying to prove that the rework is correct...

-serge