[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48E3800F.1020806@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:50:07 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
To: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Denis Lunev <den@...nvz.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, benjamin.thery@...l.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets
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 ?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists