netdev - Re: [PATCH 7/8] net: Allow setting the network namespace by fd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:32:53 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] net: Allow setting the network namespace by fd

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 14:57 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:

> No. While you sure could associate routes with devices, they don't
> *functionally* reside on top of network devices. They reside on top of
> the entire IP configuration, 

I think i am not clearly making my point. There are data dependencies;
If you were to move routes, youd need everything that routes depend on.
IOW, if i was to draw a functional graph, routes would appear on top
of netdevs (I dont care what other functional blocks you put in between
or sideways to them).

> and in case of BGP they even reside on top
> of your set of peerings and their data.
> Even if you could "move" routes together with a network device, the
> result would be utter nonsense. 

You could argue that moving a netdevice where some of its fundamental
properties such as an ifindex change is utter nonsense. But you can
work around it.

> The routes depend on your BGP view, and
> if your set of interfaces (and peers) changes, your routes will change.
> Your bgpd will, either way, need to set up new peerings and redo best
> path evaluations.

Worst case scenario, yes. I am beginning to get a feeling we are trying 
to achieve different goals maybe? Why are you even migrating netdevs?

> (On an unrelated note, how often are you planning to move stuff between
> namespaces? I don't expect to be moving stuff except on configuration
> events...)

Triggering on config events is useful and it is likely the only
possibility if you assumed the other namespace is remote. But if could
send a single command to migrate several things in the kernel (in my
case to recover state to a different ns), then that is much simpler and
uses the least resources (memory, cpu, bandwidth). I admit it is very
hard to do in most cases where the underlying dependencies are evolving
and synchronizing via user space is the best approach. The example
of route table i pointed to is simple.
Besides that: dynamic state created in the kernel that doesnt have to be
recreated by the next arriving 100K packets helps to improve recovery.

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html