On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +0000, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" 
<bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should be.
> The best way probably is to finally get the “common” VIMAGE framework into 
> HEAD to allow easy virtualisation of other services.  That work has been 
> sitting in perforce for a few years and simply needs updating for sysctls I 
> think.
> Then use that to virtualise things and have a vipc like we have vnets.  The 
> good news is that you have identified most places and have the cleanup 
> functions already so it’d be a matter of transforming your changes (assuming 
> they are correct and working fine; haven’t actually read the patch in 
> detail;-)  to the different infrastructure.  And that’s the easiest part.
> Bjoern

Hi Bjoern,
Thank you for your reply.

The "common" VIMAGE framework sounds good, I really want it.

I want to know what the IPC system looks like for user-land after virtualized,
and what happen if vnet like vipc is implemented.

For example, jail 1, 2, 3 join vipc group A, and jail 4, 5, 6 join vipc group B 
Hmm, it looks good.


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

Reply via email to