netdev - Re: [Devel] Re: Network virtualization/isolation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20061209063517.GG11747@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2006 07:35:17 +0100
From:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Dmitry Mishin <dim@...nvz.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	hadi@...erus.ca, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Network virtualization/isolation

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at> writes:
> > > 
> > > >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho 
> > > >> and waste our time instead of doing things.
> > 
> > > > well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement
> > > > something ... not the other way round, and then start
> > > > fixing up the mess ...
> > > 
> > > Well we need a bit of both.
> > 
> > hmm, are 'we' in a hurry here?
> > 
> > until recently, 'Linux' (mainline) didn't even want
> > to hear about OS Level virtualization, now there
> > is a rush to quickly get 'something' in, not knowing
> > or caring if it is usable at all?
> 
> It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.

hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the
IPC namespace then, not that I think it is broken
(well, maybe it is, we do not know yet)

> > I think there are a lot of 'potential users' for
> > this kind of virtualization, and so 'we' can test
> > almost all aspects outside of mainline, and once
> > we know the stuff works as expected, then we can
> > integrate it ...
> > 
> > the UTS namespace was something 'we all' had already
> > implemented in this (or a very similar) way, and in
> > one or two interations, it should actually work as 
> > expected. nevertheless, it was one of the simplest
> > spaces ...
> > 
> > we do not yet know the details for the IPC namespace,
> > as IPC is not that easy to check as UTS, and 'we'
> > haven't gotten real world feedback on that yet ...
> 
> We are very dependent upon all stakeholders including yourself 
> to review, test and comment upon this infrastructure as it is 
> proposed and merged. If something is proposed which will not 
> suit your requirements then it is important that we hear about 
> it, in detail, at the earliest possible time.

okay, good to hear that I'm still considered a stakeholder 

will try to focus the feedback and cc as many folks
as possible, as it seems that some feedback is lost
on the way upstream ...

best,
Herbert

> Thanks.
-
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