Re: strict isolation of net interfaces

2006-07-04 Thread Sam Vilain
Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > If it is ok for you, we can collaborate to merge the two solutions in > one. I will focus on layer 3 isolation and you on the layer 2. So, you're writing a LSM module or adapting the BSD Jail LSM, right? :) Sam. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib

Re: strict isolation of net interfaces

2006-07-03 Thread Sam Vilain
Andrey Savochkin wrote: >> Why special case loopback? >> >> Why not: >> >> host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2 >> --+---+---+-- >> | | | | >> |-> lo | | | >

Re: strict isolation of net interfaces

2006-06-29 Thread Sam Vilain
Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > The last one in your diagram confuses me - why foo0:1? I would > have thought it'd be > > host | guest 0 | guest 1 | guest2 > --+---+---+-- > | | | | > |-> l0

Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

2006-06-29 Thread Sam Vilain
Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Makes sense for the host side to have naming convention tied >> to the guest. Example as a prefix: guest0-eth0. Would it not >> be interesting to have the host also manage these interfaces >> via standard tools like ip or ifconfig etc? i.e if i admin up >> guest0-eth0, t

Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

2006-06-29 Thread Sam Vilain
jamal wrote: >> note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing >> the device names so that each guest can have a separate >> name space for devices, but there should be a way to >> 'see' _and_ 'identify' the interfaces from outside >> (i.e. host or spectator context) >> >> > > Makes

Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Vilain
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution > is fundamental. Believing without proof and after arguments > to the contrary that you have not contradicted that a layer 2 > solution is inherently slower is non-productive. Arguing > that a layer 2 only solut

Re: Network namespaces a path to mergable code.

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Vilain
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > In general it is possible to get file descriptors opened by someone > else because unix domain sockets allow file descriptor passing. Similarly > I think there are cases in both unshare and fork that allows you to sockets > open before you entered a namespace. > This

Re: Network namespaces a path to mergable code.

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Vilain
Andrey Savochkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:20:40AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Thinking about this I am going to suggest a slightly different direction >> for get a patchset we can merge. >> >> First we concentrate on the fundamentals. >> - How we mark a device as belonging to