[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081015134204.GA26886@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:42:04 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: sysfs: tagged directories not merged completely yet
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Again fuse doesn't address the *core* issue (sysfs needing a way to
> > create files for multiple devicenames with same name). But I believe
> > Benjamin was looking into a minimal patch to fix that. Benjamin,
> > have you gotten anywhere with that?
>
> I would love to hear a minimal strategy for that.
Oh I just meant for kernel-space. So if a container is creating lo,
it will create a device named lo, but the sysfs file will be called
lo_1 or something.
> The only minimal strategy user space wise is to create multiple superblocks.
> Anything else I an think of violates backwards compatibility.
Yes, the above would require that the container either not mount
sysfs, ignore sysfs, or tweak sysfs using
mount -t tmpfs none /sys/class/net
mount --bind /sys/devices/virtual/net/lo_1 /sys/class/net/lo
or using fuse.
I'd definately prefer the sysfs tagging approach. But I'd prefer
the above over never being able to use network namespaces on a
standard distro (with sysfs enabled).
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists