From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Network namespaces: IPv4 FIB/routing in namespaces Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:56:55 +0200 Message-ID: <44A2B4D7.9080007@fr.ibm.com> References: <20060626134945.A28942@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <20060626135250.B28942@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <20060626135427.C28942@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <449FF5AE.2040201@fr.ibm.com> <44A28964.2090006@fr.ibm.com> <20060628183015.B31885@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <44A29379.6060609@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrey Savochkin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, alexey@sw.ru Return-path: Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]:61741 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbWF1Q5H (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:57:07 -0400 To: Kirill Korotaev In-Reply-To: <44A29379.6060609@sw.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Kirill Korotaev wrote: >>>>> Structures related to IPv4 rounting (FIB and routing cache) >>>>> are made per-namespace. >>> >>> >>> Hi Andrey, >>> >>> if the ressources are private to the namespace, how do you will >>> handle NFS mounted before creating the network namespace ? Do you >>> take care of that or simply assume you can't access NFS anymore ? >> >> >> >> This is a question that brings up another level of interaction between >> networking and the rest of kernel code. >> Solution that I use now makes the NFS communication part always run in >> the root namespace. This is discussable, of course, but it's a far more >> complicated matter than just device lists or routing :) > > if we had containers (not namespaces) then it would be also possible to > run NFS in context of the appropriate container and thus each user could > mount NFS itself with correct networking context. I was asking the question because in some case, we want a lightweight container for running applications (aka application container) who need to share the filesystem and it will be too bad to have a network namespace which brings isolation and prevents to implement application containers. By the way, I agree from a point of view of a system container, a complete network isolation is perfect. Regards. Daniel.