On 11/13/10 1:30 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Julian Elischer wrote:

Hi Julian,

We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next
big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow
jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices..

for example

pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get committed?) but pfsync
and pflog use special devices in /dev.

similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means they are still useful.

so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail creates a cloning device?
should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail?
and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing the same /dev?

I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities.

should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that would make 'per jail' entries? i.e. tun0 would be a different device depending on what jail
you were in looking at the /dev?

For a discussion summary that sounds sparse unless it was only a short
brainstorming;-)  Can you please elaborate on the "we" and other "use
cases" as this really sounds like a per-interface decision to me and
there might be work in progress from multiple people already.
It was only a short discussion among "non developers" during a short breakout session.
the session was "what is this VIMAGE/jails thing"?
and was not a dev-summit meeting but an "introduction to vimage" for end users.

During the discussion people were asking questions that they had. Some of the questions I could answer well but others resulted in discussions that ended up with things like, "we you could do that but that would require that you had a different /dev/pfsync for
each jail, and we have no way to do that yet".

I promised the group that after the meeting I would bring up the topic with other interested
developers... so here we are..


freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 

Reply via email to