From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:50:07 +0200 Message-ID: <48E3800F.1020806@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> <48E37637.8080408@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pavel Emelyanov , Denis Lunev , netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, benjamin.thery@bull.net To: Cedric Le Goater Return-path: Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([194.196.100.162]:41800 "EHLO mtagate2.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbYJANuO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:50:14 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m91DoDOp009054 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:50:13 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m91DoBIa4464802 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:50:12 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m91DoAkB028071 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:50:11 +0100 In-Reply-To: <48E37637.8080408@fr.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Cedric Le Goater wrote: > 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 ? Why capabilities is better than a simple sysctl ? Making an exception for init_net will break the nested containers no ?