Re: RFC: netfilter: nf_conntrack: add support for "conntrack zones"

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 15:17 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> What I am thinking is:
>> 
>> "ip ns <name> route add blah" is:
>> fd = open("/var/run/netns/<name>");
>> sys_setns(fd);  /* Like unshare but takes an existing namespace */
>> /* Then the rest of the existing ip command */
>
> The other two below make some sense; For the above:
> Does the point after sys_setns(fd) allow me to do io inside
> ns <name>? Can i do open() and get a fd from ns <name>?

Yes.  My intention is that current->nsproxy->net_ns be changed.
We can already change it in unshare so this is feasible.

>> "ip ns list" is:
>> dfd = open("/var/run/netns", O_DIRECTORY);
>> getdents(dfd, buf, count);
>> 
>> "ip ns new <name>" is:
>> unshare(CLONE_NEWNS);
>> fd = nsfd(NETNS);
>> mkdir("/var/run/netns/<name>");
>> mount("none", "/var/run/netns/<name>", "ns", 0, fd);
>> 
>> Using unix domain names means that which namespaces you see is under
>> control of userspace.  Which allows for nested containers (something I
>> use today), and ultimately container migration.
>
> The only problem that i see is events are not as nice. I take it i am 
> going to get something like an inotify when a new namespace is created?

Yes.  Inotify would at the very least see that mkdir.  You could also
use poll on /proc/mounts to see the set of mounts change.

>> Using genetlink userspace doesn't result in a nestable implementation
>> unless I introduce yet another namespace, ugh.
>
> Is it not just a naming convention that you are dealing with?
> Example in your scheme above a nested namespace shows up as:
> /var/run/netns/<name>/<nestedname>, no?

No.  More like:

For the outer namespace:
/var/run/netns/<name>

For the inner namespace:
/some/random/fs/path/to/a/chroot/var/run/netns/<name>

For a doubly nested scenario:
/some/random/fs/path/to/a/chroot/some/other/random/fs/path/to/another/chroot/var/run/netns/<name>

Since I would be using mount namespaces instead of chroot it is not
strictly required that the fs paths nest at all.

Eric