01.10.2012 18:52, Jeff Layton пишет:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 18:30:18 +0400
Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
01.10.2012 18:12, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx пишет:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 06:05:57PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
01.10.2012 15:51, Jeff Layton пишет:
- Do we need to switch to a different mount namespace somehow based on
the net namespace? Eventually we want to allow nfsd to run in a
container. At some point we'll need a mechanism to ensure that the
upcall runs within the correct container. Stanislav, I'd appreciate
your input here...
Hello, Jeff.
As far as I can see - yes, we have to switch to desired mount
namespace in kernel (because we can't do this in user namespace).
Moreover, for NFSd mount namespace looks even more important than
net namespace. I.e. we can't share one NFSd between mount namespaces
(at least, I don't understand how to do this safely).
So, if we are going to have NFSd per container, we have to tie NFSd
and mount namespace somehow.
Having one NFSd for more than one network namespace looks feasible.
But we have some races with creation and destruction of service
per-net transports, and Bruce was suggesting to think about maybe we
can just simplify all that stuff and create service per network
namespace.
BTW, is it possible to split service (trasports, etc.) and it's
"executors" (kernel threads)? If we could do it, then it would be
really easy to create as many services (with it's unique namespaces
combination) as required and teach "executors" to switch to desired
namespaces while handling service requests.
I'm sure it is possible, and would be more efficient than requiring
(number of containers) * (number of threads per container) threads.
But I think it's also a little more complicated to do, and that to start
off we'd be better off just keeping the services entirely separate.
At first sight, this two solutions (split of service/threads and service per
namespace) doesn't look like they can share a lot of code base.
I believe, that we have to think about mount namespaces during NFSd
containerization. And, if I understand you right, when you say about "entirely
separated services", you mean separated by networks namespace.
Separations per mount namespace as a second step will take actually the same
time and amount of code, as it would be a first step.
So, as I can see it, the real question is: do we really want limited (only
per-net) NFSd containerisation as soon as possible (and in this case it's much
simpler to create NFSd/Lockd service and it's threads per network namespace) or
we should skip this step and concentrate on proper implementation from the very
beginning (split of service and it's threads and tie NFSd to mount namespace)?
Ok, to bring the discussion back around, I'll note that the current
legacy clientid tracking code doesn't pay any attention to namespaces
either. So I don't think we're missing much by punting on that just
yet.
Have nothing to object to.
Once you've hashed out the mount namespace design, we should be able to
make it pay attention to that that without too much trouble.
Thanks. Now I've realised, that I'm the one who has to do it. :)
--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
