From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:08:07 +0200 Message-ID: <48E37637.8080408@fr.ibm.com> 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> <48E36FDA.5090808@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Denis Lunev , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, benjamin.thery@bull.net To: Pavel Emelyanov Return-path: Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.156]:36381 "EHLO mtagate7.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752789AbYJANIQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:08:16 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m91D8Eof034304 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:08:14 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m91D8ED73604512 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:08:14 +0200 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m91D8A5D029111 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:08:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: <48E36FDA.5090808@openvz.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > 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. > > OK. Den, please, do :) hmm, would that allow sibling namespaces to connect to each other ? If so, I'm not in favor of such a solution. I understand the need. we had a similar issue with the command line tool pgsl. Could we work something out with the capabilities ? or make an exception if your ->nsproxy->net_ns == init_net ? Thanks, C.