Re: Net containers config and usage

[ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman)]

Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> writes:

> 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...

Short version.  Before you can change code that is a mess you get the pleasure
of cleaning up someone else's mess.

I have seen no viable alternative to sysfs per namespace.

I have something like 22 patches that I hope to start pushing in the next
day or two to clean up sysfs, and then when that is done I will come back
and see what can be done about the kobject layer and sysfs.

To do all of this right I need to step back and see reworking the
sysfs and the kobject layers as worthy goals in and of themselves.  Instead
of just some barrier in the way of getting network namespaces to work
properly.

Eric