Re: [PATCH net-next v15 01/12] vsock: add netns to vsock core

Paolo Abeni
2026-01-21T16:32:42Z

On 1/21/26 3:48 PM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index a8d0afde7f85..b6e3bfe365a1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -8253,6 +8253,20 @@ Kernel parameters
>> them quite hard to use for exploits but
>> might break your system.
>>
>> + vsock_init_ns_mode=
>> + [KNL,NET] Set the vsock namespace mode for the init
>> + (root) network namespace.
>> +
>> + global [default] The init namespace operates in
>> + global mode where CIDs are system-wide and
>> + sockets can communicate across global
>> + namespaces.
>> +
>> + local The init namespace operates in local mode
>> + where CIDs are private to the namespace and
>> + sockets can only communicate within the same
>> + namespace.
>> +
>
> My comment on v14 was more to start a discussion :-) sorry to not be
> clear.
>
> I briefly discussed it with Paolo in chat to better understand our
> policy between cmdline parameters and module parameters, and it seems
> that both are discouraged.

Double checking the git log it looks like __setup() usage is less
constrained/restricted than what I thought.

> So he asked me if we have a use case for this, and thinking about it, I
> don't have one at the moment. Also, if a user decides to set all netns
> to local, whether init_net is local or global doesn't really matter,
> right?
>
> So perhaps before adding this, we should have a real use case.
> Perhaps more than this feature, I would add a way to change the default
> of all netns (including init_net) from global to local. But we can do
> that later, since all netns have a way to understand what mode they are
> in, so we don't break anything and the user has to explicitly change it,
> knowing that they are breaking compatibility with pre-netns support.\

Lacking a clear use-case for vsock_init_ns_mode I tend to think it would
be better to postpone its introduction. It should be easier to add it
later than vice-versa.

If there is a clear/well defined/known use-case, I guess the series can
go as-is.

/P