On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:57:22AM -0700, Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 22/07/2010 17:52, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:34:44AM -0500, Robert Gordon wrote: > >> There isn't really any current behavior with respect to sharing in a > >> zone :) > >> > >> I understand what you are saying and the zone boot restriction can be > >> removed, it doesn't effect the proposed new interfaces. My concern is > >> inadvertent "zone data leakage" ... > > > > I think there is a compatibility issue. Prior to this project the g-z > > could share a zone's resources, now either, but not both of the g-z and > > And TX actually depends on that behaviour today, on the other hand once > we do have NFS servers within a zone then TX could migrate to using that > instead (because that is what it is currently providing the illusion of > anyway).
Is TX still exclusive of exclusive-IP zones? It'd be nice if one could run non-TX zones under TX, which would necessarily mean that such zones would have to have a single label that they run under to control interactions with TX zones. Until TX is sufficiently general I think this can be papered over: in TX only the g-z should get to share resources via SMB/NFS. Nico -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
