On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 13:55 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 13:13 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Denis V. Lunev wrote: > >>> This patch opens a way to connect via Unix socket from one namespace > >>> to another if these sockets are opened via conventional filesystem > >>> interface. Such approach allows to share important services between > >>> namespaces in efficient way. > >>> > >>> This breach is controlled by the means of shared filesystem, i.e. if > >>> somebody really wants to isolate containers, he should start from > >>> filesystem separation. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> net/unix/af_unix.c | 3 --- > >>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c > >>> index 39d2173..0e1eccd 100644 > >>> --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c > >>> +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c > >>> @@ -297,9 +297,6 @@ static struct sock *unix_find_socket_byinode(struct net *net, struct inode *i) > >>> &unix_socket_table[i->i_ino & (UNIX_HASH_SIZE - 1)]) { > >>> struct dentry *dentry = unix_sk(s)->dentry; > >>> > >>> - if (!net_eq(sock_net(s), net)) > >>> - continue; > >>> - > >>> if(dentry && dentry->d_inode == i) > >>> { > >>> sock_hold(s); > >> Hi Denis, > >> > >> Do you have a list of the important services this isolation forbids ? (I > >> suppose there is syslog). > > > > we have asked from our customers for a shared MySQL server > > > > The full story is here :) > > http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 > > Ok, thanks. > > My question remains :) > > How do you handle migration in this case ? There is no problem until you really have listeners from different namespaces on both ends. This is checked after the freeze stage and migration is forbidden if such a situation is detected. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers