nets: status of sysfs with netns

nets: status of sysfs with netns

[Benjamin Thery]

Eric, Pavel,

I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I 
think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks. 
So I'm wondering what is the current status? Is anyone still working on it?

As several netns patches for IPv4 and IPv6 have already been merged in 
net-2.6.26, it would be great to have the sysfs part also to help people 
who want test netns.
Right now, it is a pain to boot and test a system with CONFIG_SYSFS=n.

(I know the problem is not trivial and won't be easy to solve. I just 
want to be sure it is not forgotten)

Pavel, I've heard you sent (or have) a patch that prevents sysfs access 
from a "child" netns. A patch that can be a good workaround until we 
have the full thing ready. I can't find it in mailing lists archives, 
can you give some hints about where to find it? :)

Thanks a lot.

Benjamin

-- 
B e n j a m i n   T h e r y  - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D

    http://www.bull.com

Re: nets: status of sysfs with netns

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Benjamin Thery wrote:
> Eric, Pavel,
> 
> I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I 
> think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks. 
> So I'm wondering what is the current status? Is anyone still working on it?

I'm thinking on it, but have no graceful solution :( Sysfs is a big...
no - HUUUUUUUUUUGE problem.

> As several netns patches for IPv4 and IPv6 have already been merged in 
> net-2.6.26, it would be great to have the sysfs part also to help people 
> who want test netns.
> Right now, it is a pain to boot and test a system with CONFIG_SYSFS=n.
> 
> (I know the problem is not trivial and won't be easy to solve. I just 
> want to be sure it is not forgotten)

It is (unfortunately) not.

> Pavel, I've heard you sent (or have) a patch that prevents sysfs access 
> from a "child" netns. A patch that can be a good workaround until we 
> have the full thing ready. I can't find it in mailing lists archives, 
> can you give some hints about where to find it? :)

Hm. I haven't had plans to do such things actually.

> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Benjamin
> 

Re: nets: status of sysfs with netns

[Benjamin Thery]

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Benjamin Thery wrote:
>> Eric, Pavel,
>>
>> I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I 
>> think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks. 
>> So I'm wondering what is the current status? Is anyone still working on it?
> 
> I'm thinking on it, but have no graceful solution :( Sysfs is a big...
> no - HUUUUUUUUUUGE problem.

Agreed.

>> As several netns patches for IPv4 and IPv6 have already been merged in 
>> net-2.6.26, it would be great to have the sysfs part also to help people 
>> who want test netns.
>> Right now, it is a pain to boot and test a system with CONFIG_SYSFS=n.
>>
>> (I know the problem is not trivial and won't be easy to solve. I just 
>> want to be sure it is not forgotten)
> 
> It is (unfortunately) not.
> 
>> Pavel, I've heard you sent (or have) a patch that prevents sysfs access 
>> from a "child" netns. A patch that can be a good workaround until we 
>> have the full thing ready. I can't find it in mailing lists archives, 
>> can you give some hints about where to find it? :)
> 
> Hm. I haven't had plans to do such things actually.

Oh, that explains why I didn't find it :)
I must have misunderstood what I heard...

> 
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
B e n j a m i n   T h e r y  - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D

    http://www.bull.com

Re: nets: status of sysfs with netns

[Eric W. Biederman]

Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Benjamin Thery wrote:
>> Eric, Pavel,
>> 
>> I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I 
>> think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks. 
>> So I'm wondering what is the current status? Is anyone still working on it?
>
> I'm thinking on it, but have no graceful solution :( Sysfs is a big...
> no - HUUUUUUUUUUGE problem.
>
>> As several netns patches for IPv4 and IPv6 have already been merged in 
>> net-2.6.26, it would be great to have the sysfs part also to help people 
>> who want test netns.
>> Right now, it is a pain to boot and test a system with CONFIG_SYSFS=n.
>> 
>> (I know the problem is not trivial and won't be easy to solve. I just 
>> want to be sure it is not forgotten)
>
> It is (unfortunately) not.
>
>> Pavel, I've heard you sent (or have) a patch that prevents sysfs access 
>> from a "child" netns. A patch that can be a good workaround until we 
>> have the full thing ready. I can't find it in mailing lists archives, 
>> can you give some hints about where to find it? :)
>
> Hm. I haven't had plans to do such things actually.
>
>> Thanks a lot.

Sorry guys.  I think my initial reply got lost.

Currently my approach was approved in code review.  The only hold up
seems to be time, and gregkh getting overloaded and dropping the
patches, for the Nth time.

So I need to resend.  I won't for a week or two because I am right in
the middle of moving.

Sorry I thought I had replied to the earlier question of status with
this but is seems that message got lost somewhere in the delivery
process.

Eric

Re: nets: status of sysfs with netns

[Daniel Lezcano]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
>> Benjamin Thery wrote:
>>> Eric, Pavel,
>>>
>>> I haven't followed everything about the sysfs/netns issue recently and I 
>>> think I have missed some of its recent developments in the past weeks. 
>>> So I'm wondering what is the current status? Is anyone still working on it?
>> I'm thinking on it, but have no graceful solution :( Sysfs is a big...
>> no - HUUUUUUUUUUGE problem.
>>
>>> As several netns patches for IPv4 and IPv6 have already been merged in 
>>> net-2.6.26, it would be great to have the sysfs part also to help people 
>>> who want test netns.
>>> Right now, it is a pain to boot and test a system with CONFIG_SYSFS=n.
>>>
>>> (I know the problem is not trivial and won't be easy to solve. I just 
>>> want to be sure it is not forgotten)
>> It is (unfortunately) not.
>>
>>> Pavel, I've heard you sent (or have) a patch that prevents sysfs access 
>>> from a "child" netns. A patch that can be a good workaround until we 
>>> have the full thing ready. I can't find it in mailing lists archives, 
>>> can you give some hints about where to find it? :)
>> Hm. I haven't had plans to do such things actually.
>>
>>> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Sorry guys.  I think my initial reply got lost.
> 
> Currently my approach was approved in code review.  The only hold up
> seems to be time, and gregkh getting overloaded and dropping the
> patches, for the Nth time.

Hi Eric,

I tryed to look at your patchset but I was unable to find it. Do you 
have it somewhere available ? I was guessing I could play with it and by 
the way test it a little ;)

Thanks
  -- Daniel













































Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 542.737.118 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430