From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Denis V. Lunev" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:11:57 +0400 Message-ID: <1222866717.23573.58.camel@iris.sw.ru> References: <1222858454-7843-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <48E35B4C.1040303@fr.ibm.com> <1222860776.23573.49.camel@iris.sw.ru> <48E3653C.1070701@fr.ibm.com> <1222862583.23573.54.camel@iris.sw.ru> <48E36ABF.8030908@fr.ibm.com> <48E36BFA.3040904@openvz.org> <48E36DA0.9080400@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pavel Emelyanov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, benjamin.thery@bull.net, ebiederm@xmission.com To: Daniel Lezcano Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:2409 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752477AbYJANNs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:13:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48E36DA0.9080400@fr.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:31 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >> So there are 2 cases: > >> * full isolation : restriction on VPS > >> * partial isolation : no restriction but *perhaps* problem when migrating > >> > >> Looks like we need an option per namespace to reduce the isolation for > >> af_unix sockets :) > >> - on (default): current behaviour => full isolation > >> - off : partial isolation > > > > You mean some sysctl, that enables/disables this check in unix_find_socket_byinode? > > Yes. I do not see much sense with sysctl as: - check (cross-connected sockets) is required as we can start namespace with already opened socket - this kind of sharing is not implicit but explicit as normal isolated containers _must_ have separate filesystems. In this case this sharing requires explicit host administrator action to link socket between containers