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  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]
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:00:52 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:13:22PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/4/27 下午10:25, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > Hi David, Michael, Stefan,
> > I'm restarting to work on this topic since Kata guys are interested to
> > have that, especially on the guest side.
> > 
> > While working on the v2 I had few doubts, and I'd like to have your
> > suggestions:
> > 
> >   1. netns assigned to the device inside the guest
> > 
> >     Currently I assigned this device to 'init_net'. Maybe it is better
> >     if we allow the user to decide which netns assign to the device
> >     or to disable this new feature to have the same behavior as before
> >     (host reachable from any netns).
> >     I think we can handle this in the vsock core and not in the single
> >     transports.
> > 
> >     The simplest way that I found, is to add a new
> >     IOCTL_VM_SOCKETS_ASSIGN_G2H_NETNS to /dev/vsock to enable the feature
> >     and assign the device to the same netns of the process that do the
> >     ioctl(), but I'm not sure it is clean enough.
> > 
> >     Maybe it is better to add new rtnetlink messages, but I'm not sure if
> >     it is feasible since we don't have a netdev device.
> > 
> >     What do you suggest?
> 
> 
> As we've discussed, it should be a netdev probably in either guest or host
> side. And it would be much simpler if we want do implement namespace then.
> No new API is needed.
> 

Thanks Jason!

It would be cool, but I don't have much experience on netdev.
Do you see any particular obstacles?

I'll take a look to understand how to do it, surely in the guest would
be very useful to have the vsock device as a netdev and maybe also in the host.

Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists