Cedric Le Goater wrote: > Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>>>> So there are 2 cases: >>>>> * full isolation : restriction on VPS >>>>> * partial isolation : no restriction but *perhaps* problem when migrating >>>>> >>>>> Looks like we need an option per namespace to reduce the isolation for >>>>> af_unix sockets :) >>>>> - on (default): current behaviour => full isolation >>>>> - off : partial isolation >>>> You mean some sysctl, that enables/disables this check in unix_find_socket_byinode? >>> Yes. >> OK. Den, please, do :) > > hmm, would that allow sibling namespaces to connect to each other ? If so, > I'm not in favor of such a solution. > > I understand the need. we had a similar issue with the command line tool > pgsl. Could we work something out with the capabilities ? or make an > exception if your ->nsproxy->net_ns == init_net ? Why capabilities is better than a simple sysctl ? Making an exception for init_net will break the nested containers no ? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
