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

[Eric W. Biederman]

Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries.
>> Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
>> and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP
>> addresses and route.
>
> I mean instead of having the route tables private to the namespace, the routes
> have the information to which namespace they are associated.

Is this an implementation difference or is this a user visible difference?
As an implementation difference this is sensible, as it is pretty insane
to allocate hash tables at run time.

As a user visible difference that affects semantics of the operations
this is not something we want to do.

Eric
-
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/