From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] per-containers tcp buffer limitation
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:11:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E569059.1020606@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110825084415.3c3094e8@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net>
On 08/25/2011 12:44 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> You seem to have forgotten the work of your forefathers. When appealing
> to history you must understand it first.
>
> What about using netfilter (with extensions)? We already have iptables
> module to match on uid or gid. It wouldn't be hard to extend this to
> other bits of meta data like originating and target containers.
>
> You could also use this to restrict access to ports and hosts on
> a per container basis.
>
Hello Stephen,
I am pretty sure netfilter can provide us with amazing functionality
that will help our containers implementation a lot.
I don't think, however, that memory limitation belongs in there. First
of all, IIRC, we are not dropping packets, re-routing, dealing with any
low level characteristic, etc. We're just controlling buffer size. This
seems orthogonal to the work of netfilter.
Think for instance, in the soft limit: When we hit it, we enter a memory
pressure scenario. How would netfilter handle that?
So I guess cgroup is still better suited for this very specific task we
have in mind here. For most of the others, I have no doubt that
netfilter would come handy.
Thanks for your time!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] per-containers tcp buffer limitation
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:11:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E569059.1020606@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110825084415.3c3094e8@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net>
On 08/25/2011 12:44 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> You seem to have forgotten the work of your forefathers. When appealing
> to history you must understand it first.
>
> What about using netfilter (with extensions)? We already have iptables
> module to match on uid or gid. It wouldn't be hard to extend this to
> other bits of meta data like originating and target containers.
>
> You could also use this to restrict access to ports and hosts on
> a per container basis.
>
Hello Stephen,
I am pretty sure netfilter can provide us with amazing functionality
that will help our containers implementation a lot.
I don't think, however, that memory limitation belongs in there. First
of all, IIRC, we are not dropping packets, re-routing, dealing with any
low level characteristic, etc. We're just controlling buffer size. This
seems orthogonal to the work of netfilter.
Think for instance, in the soft limit: When we hit it, we enter a memory
pressure scenario. How would netfilter handle that?
So I guess cgroup is still better suited for this very specific task we
have in mind here. For most of the others, I have no doubt that
netfilter would come handy.
Thanks for your time!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-25 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-24 22:54 [RFC] per-containers tcp buffer limitation Glauber Costa
2011-08-24 22:54 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 0:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-08-25 0:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-08-25 1:28 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 1:28 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 1:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-08-25 2:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] ` <m14o16qlq1.fsf-+imSwln9KH6u2/kzUuoCbdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
2011-08-25 12:55 ` Daniel Wagner
2011-08-25 15:05 ` Chris Friesen
2011-08-25 15:44 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-08-25 18:11 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2011-08-25 18:11 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 18:33 ` Daniel Wagner
2011-08-25 18:33 ` Daniel Wagner
2011-08-25 18:45 ` Daniel Wagner
2011-08-25 18:27 ` Daniel Wagner
[not found] ` <4E56942A.3080905-kQCPcA+X3s7YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>
2011-08-27 23:39 ` Matthew Helsley
2011-08-28 6:09 ` David Miller
2011-08-25 18:02 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 18:02 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 18:05 ` Glauber Costa
2011-08-25 18:05 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E569059.1020606@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=chris.friesen@genband.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
--cc=wagi@monom.org \
--cc=xemul@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.