Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I think for cases across network socket namespaces it should > be a matter for the rules, to decide if the connection should > happen and what error code to return if the connection does not > happen. > > There is a potential in this to have an ambiguous case where two > applications can be listening for connections on the same socket > on the same port and both will allow the connection. If that > is the case I believe the proper definition is the first socket > that we find that will accept the connection gets the connection. Wouldn't you want to catch this at bind() and/or configuration time and fail? Having overlapping namespaces/rules seems undesirable, since as Herbert said, can get you "unexpected behaviour". > I think with the appropriate set of rules it provides what is needed > for application migration. I.e. 127.0.0.1 can be filtered so that > you can only connect to sockets in your current container. > > It does get a little odd because it does allow for the possibility > that you can have multiple connected sockets with same source ip, > source port, destination ip, destination port. If the rules are > setup appropriately. I don't see that peculiarity being visible on > the outside network so it shouldn't be a problem. So if they're using the same protocol (eg TCP), how is it decided which one gets an incoming packet? Maybe I'm missing something as I don't understand your inside/outside network reference - is that to the loopback address comment in the previous paragraph? Thanks, -Brian
