Re: [patch 1/2][RFC] add socketat syscall

[Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano-NmTC/0ZBporQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano-NmTC/0ZBporQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds the socketat syscall which allows to specify in
>>>>> which network namespace we want to create a socket. The network
>>>>> namespace destination is referred by a socket fd previously opened
>>>>> in the destination network namespace.
>>> Daniel,
>>>
>>> Is there any documentation for this system call, and/or test programs?
>> Not yet.
>>
>> This small patch is a proposition to Andreas and Vivien to have a single 
>> process being able to manage several network namespaces.
>>
>> When a process unshares the network, it creates a socket which is used 
>> as a socket control (it belongs to the network namespace). Each time a 
>> network namespace is created, a socket control is created.
>>
>> When the process has to create a socket for a specific network 
>> namespace, it can use the socket control to specify it. This is the 
>> purpose of the socketat syscall.
> 
> what about eric's proposal of adding an fd argument to sys_socket() ? was it 
> dropped ?

AFAIU, the Eric's proposal in case a new syscall was not accepted. IMHO 
a new syscall, with the man pages is better than adding an extra obscure 
argument to a well known API.  But if there is a reason to not add a new 
syscall, we can consider Eric's approach as a good alternative I think.

But before sending anything, I am still waiting for Vivien and Andreas 
answer about this approach. If it helps them to migrate their project to 
the network namespace, I will send something more formal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html