From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: Namespaces and inetpeer Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:58:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20120312095840.GM15404@secunet.com> References: <20120310132529.GA3631@gondor.apana.org.au> <20120312085756.GL15404@secunet.com> <20120312.023505.2024370184180125281.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:40386 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750865Ab2CLJ6s (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:58:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120312.023505.2024370184180125281.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:35:05AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Steffen Klassert > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:57:56 +0100 > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:25:29AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > >> Hi: > >> > >> While looking through the inetpeer code I noticed that there is > >> no namespace support at all. This means that metric and other > >> information will be leaking across namespaces. As IP addresses > >> are meant to be independent between them, this is not a good thing. > >> > > > > Actually, it would be nice if we could have an inetpeer base per > > fib table. This would imply namespace awareness and it would > > handle the problem when we have mulitiple routes (with different > > metrics etc.) to the same ip address on policy routing. > > Then you will ask for one per security policy too, to handle IPSEC. Hm, I don't see why this would be needed too. It was just an idea to handle the metrcis with policy routing. Better ideas are very welcome of course :)