Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v13 00/13] vsock: add namespace support to vhost-vsock and loopback

[Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 07:12:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 04:11:12PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 04:28:34PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>> > This series adds namespace support to vhost-vsock and loopback. It does
>> > not add namespaces to any of the other guest transports (virtio-vsock,
>> > hyperv, or vmci).
>> >
>> > The current revision supports two modes: local and global. Local
>> > mode is complete isolation of namespaces, while global mode is complete
>> > sharing between namespaces of CIDs (the original behavior).
>> >
>> > The mode is set using the parent namespace's
>> > /proc/sys/net/vsock/child_ns_mode and inherited when a new namespace is
>> > created. The mode of the current namespace can be queried by reading
>> > /proc/sys/net/vsock/ns_mode. The mode can not change after the namespace
>> > has been created.
>> >
>> > Modes are per-netns. This allows a system to configure namespaces
>> > independently (some may share CIDs, others are completely isolated).
>> > This also supports future possible mixed use cases, where there may be
>> > namespaces in global mode spinning up VMs while there are mixed mode
>> > namespaces that provide services to the VMs, but are not allowed to
>> > allocate from the global CID pool (this mode is not implemented in this
>> > series).
>>
>> Stefano, would like me to resend this without the RFC tag, or should I
>> just leave as is for review? I don't have any planned changes at the
>> moment.
>>
>> Best,
>> Bobby
>
>i couldn't apply it on top of net-next so pls do.
>

Yeah, some difficulties to apply also here.
I tried `base-commit: 962ac5ca99a5c3e7469215bf47572440402dfd59` as 
mentioned in the cover, but didn't apply. After several tries I 
successfully applied on top of commit bc69ed975203 ("Merge tag 
'for_linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost")

So, I agree, better to resend and you can remove RFC.

BTW I'll do my best to start to review tomorrow!

Thanks,
Stefano