From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:24:26 +0400 Message-ID: <48E36BFA.3040904@openvz.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, benjamin.thery@bull.net, ebiederm@xmission.com, Denis Lunev To: Daniel Lezcano Return-path: Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:52947 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752087AbYJAMZm (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:25:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48E36ABF.8030908@fr.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > 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?