[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a70d4fb-b790-cd7f-a0cd-ad38e978b0e9@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:45:42 +0200
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Persisting mounts between 'ip netns' invocations
Le 29/09/2023 à 11:25, Christian Brauner a écrit :
>> I fear that creating a new mount ns for each net ns will introduce more problems.
>
> Not sure if we're talking past each other but that is what's happening
> now. Each new ip netns exec invocation will allocate a _new_ mount
> namespace. In other words, if you have 300 ip netns exec commands
> running then there will be 300 individual mount namespaces active.
>
> What I tried to say is that ip netns exec could be changed to
> _optionally_ allocate a prepared mount namespace that is shared between
> ip netns exec commands. And yeah, that would need to be a new command
> line addition to ip netns exec.
Ok, you talked about changing 'ip netns exec', not adding an option, thus I
thought that you suggested adding this unconditionally ;-)
I was asking myself how to propagate mount points between the parent and 'ip
netns exec' (both way), but this may be another use case than Toke's use case.
Regards,
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists