[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348861902.32187.18.camel@pro6455b.example.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:51:42 -0400
From: Dilip Daya <dilip.daya@...com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: network-namespace and unix-domain-sockets
Hi Eric,
I very much appreciate your quick response!. I found it:
<http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2010-June/024725.html>
Thanking you for your time and effort.
-DilipD.
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 12:29 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dilip Daya <dilip.daya@...com> writes:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > => kernel 3.6.0-rc6 + network-namespace + unix-domain-sockets
> >
> > srv/cli sample programs at:
> > <http://tkhanson.net/cgit.cgi/misc.git/plain/unixdomain/Unix_domain_sockets.html>
> > Executing UNIX domain sockets between two network-namespaces fails but
> > successful if both srv and cli are executed within a network-namespace.
> >
> > Test results:
> >
> > (1) Executing both srv and cli within default/host network-namespace:
> >
> > On host/default netns:
> > # ./cli
> > testing...
> > ^C
> >
> > On host/default netns:
> > # ./srv
> > read 11 bytes: testing...
> >
> > EOF
> >
> >
> > (2) Executing srv in default/host netns and cli within netns named
> > netns0:
> >
> > On host/default netns:
> > # ip netns
> > netns1
> > netns0
> >
> > On host/default netns:
> > # ./srv
> >
> > Within netns name netns0:
> > # ip netns exec netns0 ./cli
> > connect error: Connection refused
>
> Yes that is correct behavior.
>
> > => I find difference between __unix_find_socket_byname() and
> > *unix_find_socket_byinode()
> >
> > ---
> > if (!net_eq(sock_net(s), net))
> > continue;
> > ---
> >
> > => Is there an explanation for why __unix_find_socket_byname() was left
> > netns aware and *unix_find_socket_byinode() is not netns aware ?
>
> The abstract namespace will cause two sockets with the same name
> in different network namespaces to conflict.
>
> The network namespace a socket is in is irrelevant for purposes of
> conflicts on the filesystem.
>
> There is also a detailed commit message that was written at the time
> the per network namespace restrictions were relaxed on
> unix_find_socket_byinode if you would like to read it.
>
> > => Please see attached patch. Is this valid? or will it break something?
> > I've tested network namespaces with this patch applied and I did not
> > find any issues.
>
> Totally invalid.
>
> Eric
--
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