Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>Currently I don't fold the namesapce into the hash so multiple >>>namespaces using the same socket name will be guaranteed a hash >>>collision. >> >> >>That doesn't sound like a good thing :) Is there a reason for >>not avoiding the collisions? > > > Two reasons. Minimizing the size of the changes to make review > easier, and I don't know if hash collisions are likely in practice > or if they matter. I don't believe we can't physically collide and > have the same inode because we make a node in the filesystem. The > abstract domain is local to linux and so people don't use it as much. > > All of which boils down to. I don't see it matter a heck of a lot > especially initially. So I did the traditional unix thing and started > with a simple and stupid implementation. But it didn't quite feel > right to me either so I documented it. > > Whipping up a patch to take the namespace into account in mkname > doesn't look to hard though. It doesn't look like it would increase patch size significantly (about 4 more changed lines), but it could of course be done in a follow-up patch. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
