From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [patch 1/2][RFC] add socketat syscall Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:33:24 +0100 Message-ID: <49143594.8030109@fr.ibm.com> References: <20081031215602.655672481@fr.ibm.com> <20081031215900.810348746@fr.ibm.com> <517f3f820811060522i7b3518aen47907a34b38adee9@mail.gmail.com> <491318DC.4000300@fr.ibm.com> <49143263.1040604@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49143263.1040604-NmTC/0ZBporQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Cedric Le Goater Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Subrata Modak , Vivien Chappelier , Andreas B Aaen List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Cedric Le Goater wrote: > Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Michael Kerrisk wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Lezcano 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