[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Virtual ethernet tunnel

[Daniel Lezcano]

Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>>>> I did this at the very first version, but Alexey showed me that this
>>>>> would be wrong. Look. When we create the second device it must be in
>>>>> the other namespace as it is useless to have them in one namespace.
>>>>> But if we have the device in the other namespace the RTNL_NEWLINK
>>>>> message from kernel would come into this namespace thus confusing ip
>>>>> utility in the init namespace. Creating the device in the init ns and
>>>>> moving it into the new one is rather a complex task.
>>>>>         
>>>> Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> moving the netdevice to another namespace is not a complex task. Eric
>>>> Biederman did it in its patchset ( cf.  http://lxc.sf.net/network )
>>>>     
>>> By saying complex I didn't mean that this is difficult to implement,
>>> but that it consists (must consist) of many stages. I.e. composite.
>>> Making the device right in the namespace is liter.
>>>
>>>  
>>>> When the pair device is created, both extremeties are into the init
>>>> namespace and you can choose to which namespace to move one extremity.
>>>>     
>>> I do not mind that.
>>>  
>>>> When the network namespace dies, the netdev is moved back to the init
>>>> namespace.
>>>> That facilitate network device management.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning netlink events, this is automatically generated when the
>>>> network device is moved through namespaces.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, we should have the network device movement between namespaces in
>>>> order to be able to move a physical network device too (eg. you have 4
>>>> NIC and you want to create 3 containers and assign 3 NIC to each of
>>>> them)
>>>>     
>>> Agree. Moving the devices is a must-have functionality.
>>>
>>> I do not mind making the pair in the init namespace and move the second
>>> one into the desired namespace. But if we *always* will have two ends in
>>> different namespaces what to complicate things for?
>>>   
>> Just to provide a netdev sufficiently generic to be used by people who
>> don't want namespaces but just want to do some network testing, like Ben
>> Greear does. He mentioned in a previous email, he will be happy to stop
>> redirecting people to out of tree patch.
> 
> This patch creates booth devices in the init namespace. That's what
> you want, isn't it? When we have the namespaces we will be able to
> create the pair with booth ends in the init namespace - just do not
> specify the namespace id to create the 2nd end in and the driver will
> leave it int the init one.

Ok, fine.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers