Quoting S.Çağlar Onur ([email protected]): > Hey Serge, > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Quoting Stéphane Graber ([email protected]): > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:32:02PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote: > >> Right, I'd be fine with us just having: > >> - lxc discard lxc.network.mtu for unpriv containers > > > > Done implicitly by unpriv users not calling lxc_create_network(), > > which calls instantiate_veth() where mtu is set. So unpriv veths > > always have mtu set to 1500. > > > >> - lxc-user-nic mirror the bridge mtu to both interfaces of the veth pair > > > > the patch below does that. > > > >> - ensure that privileged lxc will always set the same mtu on both > >> interfaces in a veth pair > > > > I was wrong before, that's being done now. > > > > From 99b3648323a468341f35e84ed9417b344b6fb8a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:42:34 -0600 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] network: set mtu of unpriv veth to the bridge's mtu > > > > That's to make sure that if the bridge has a higher than 1500 > > mtu, the new veth (defaulting to 1500) doesn't lower it. > > > > The netlink get_mtu fn is ugly. If it causes us any problems we should > > ditch it in favor of /sys/class/net/$name/mtu. > > Then why we are not reading that file instead? I've no objection but > just trying to learn the reason :)
I haven't yet thought of a good reason. I started the netlink route because the rest of the networking code is doing it. I have this nagging feeling that it should be more reliable. But if there is any subtle bug in the netlink version it'll be tough to spot, so that's a big downside. -serge _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
