Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Herbert Poetzl]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion Although I.
> wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :)   .

> Indeed, the first point to agree in this discussion is device list. 
> In your patch, you essentially introduce a data structure parallel
> to the main device list, creating a "view" of this list. 

> I see a fundamental problem with this approach. When a device presents
> an skb to the protocol layer, it needs to know to which namespace this
> skb belongs.

> Otherwise you would never get rid of problems with bind: what to do if
> device eth1 is visible in namespace1, namespace2, and root namespace,
> and each namespace has a socket bound to 0.0.0.0:80?

this is something which isn't a fundamental problem at
all, and IMHO there are at least three options here
(probably more)

 - check at 'bind' time if the binding would overlap
   and give the 'proper' error (as it happens right
   now on the host)
   (this is how Linux-VServer currently handles the
   network isolation, and yes, it works quite fine :)

 - allow arbitrary binds and 'tag' the packets according
   to some 'host' policy (e.g. iptables or tc)
   (this is how the Linux-VServer ngnet was designed)

 - deliver packets to _all_ bound sockets/destinations
   (this is probably a more unusable but quite thinkable
   solution)

> We have to conclude that each device should be visible only in one
> namespace. 

I disagree here, especially some supervisor context or
the host context should be able to 'see' and probably
manipulate _all_ of the devices

> In this case, instead of introducing net_ns_dev and net_ns_dev_list
> structures, we can simply have a separate dev_base list head in each
> namespace. Moreover, separate device list in each namespace will be in
> line with making namespace isolation complete. 

> Complete isolation will allow each namespace to set up own tun/tap
> devices, have own routes, netfilter tables, and so on.

tun/tap devices are quite possible with this approach
too, I see no problem here ...

for iptables and routes, I'm worried about the required
'policy' to make them secure, i.e. how do you ensure
that the packets 'leaving' guest X do not contain
'evil' packets and/or disrupt your host system?

> My follow-up messages will contain the first set of patches with
> network namespaces implemented in the same way as network isolation 
> in OpenVZ. 

hmm, you probably mean 'network virtualization' here

> This patchset introduces namespaces for device list and IPv4
> FIB/routing. Two technical issues are omitted to make the patch idea
> clearer: device moving between namespaces, and selective routing cache
> flush + garbage collection.
>
> If this patchset is agreeable, the next patchset will finalize
> integration with nsproxy, add namespaces to socket lookup code and
> neighbour cache, and introduce a simple device to pass traffic between
> namespaces.

passing traffic 'between' namespaces should happen via
lo, no? what kind of 'device' is required there, and
what overhead does it add to the networking?

TIA,
Herbert

> Then we will turn to less obvious matters including
> netlink messages, network statistics, representation of network
> information in proc and sysfs, tuning of parameters through sysctl,
> IPv6 and other protocols, and per-namespace netfilters.
> 
> Best regards
> 		Andrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/