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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:21:42 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <>
Cc:, Stefan Hajnoczi <>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,, Jorgen Hansen <>,,,, Dexuan Cui <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace

On 2020/4/29 上午12:00, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> 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 don't see but if there's we can try to find a solution or ask for 
netdev experts for that. I do hear from somebody that is interested in 
having netdev in the past.

> 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.

Yes, it's worth to have a try then we will have a unified management 
interface and we will benefit from it in the future.

Starting form guest is good idea which should be less complicated than host.


> Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists