Kacheong Poon wrote: > Cathy Zhou wrote: > >> Sorry that I wasn't clear. But this thread strictly talks about phase 0 >> (which has already been in Nevada). Can you have a second look to see >> whether the point in this thread is valid for phase 0? > > > NWAM phase 0 does not know about link renaming. So I guess > what you proposed is valid. But what you change probably will > be removed for NWAM phase 1. > Understood. > >> Okay. I asked because I tried and found that the network/nwam service >> does exist in the local zone. It also has a function call >> lookup_zonename() in its code. > > Oh, I think it is a fix to make sure that only the dhcpagent > in the zone running nwamd (which is the global zone) is killed, > not the dhcpagent in other zones. I don't think it is the > intention to run nwamd in a non-global zone. I guess John > can confirm this. The network/nwam leak to a non-global zone > is probably a bug. > I see.
- Cathy
