Cedric Le Goater wrote: > Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Michael Kerrisk wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> This patch adds the socketat syscall which allows to specify in >>>>> which network namespace we want to create a socket. The network >>>>> namespace destination is referred by a socket fd previously opened >>>>> in the destination network namespace. >>> Daniel, >>> >>> Is there any documentation for this system call, and/or test programs? >> Not yet. >> >> This small patch is a proposition to Andreas and Vivien to have a single >> process being able to manage several network namespaces. >> >> When a process unshares the network, it creates a socket which is used >> as a socket control (it belongs to the network namespace). Each time a >> network namespace is created, a socket control is created. >> >> When the process has to create a socket for a specific network >> namespace, it can use the socket control to specify it. This is the >> purpose of the socketat syscall. > > what about eric's proposal of adding an fd argument to sys_socket() ? was it > dropped ? AFAIU, the Eric's proposal in case a new syscall was not accepted. IMHO a new syscall, with the man pages is better than adding an extra obscure argument to a well known API. But if there is a reason to not add a new syscall, we can consider Eric's approach as a good alternative I think. But before sending anything, I am still waiting for Vivien and Andreas answer about this approach. If it helps them to migrate their project to the network namespace, I will send something more formal. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers