> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:10 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +0000, "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
> <bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
>> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
>>> I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should
>> 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
>> 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.
> 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.
That’s not exactly how it works currently and I think the mixing of options
will be harder and something we’l have to figure out more carefully.
You would be able to say jail 1 has a vipc and jail 2 and 3 and “child jails”
and inherit it. (similar for 4 + 5,6) so it’s nested but not side-by-side.
If we want more of the “mixing” and independentness we’ll have to re-think the
way we “manage” jails.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to