Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:10:26 +0900 From: <kikuchan@uranus.dti.ne.jp> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: <freebsd-jail@freebsd.org>, <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to implement jail-aware SysV IPC (with my nasty patch) Message-ID: <beed5db2dd2638359e2d71387a3e2885@imap.cm.dream.jp> In-Reply-To: <2B7AA933-CB74-4737-8330-6E623A31C6DA@lists.zabbadoz.net> References: <cc18282ebe394476120a139239225782@imap.cm.dream.jp> <2B7AA933-CB74-4737-8330-6E623A31C6DA@lists.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +0000, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote: > Hi, > > removed hackers, added virtualization. > > >> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuchan@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. Regards, Kikuchan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?beed5db2dd2638359e2d71387a3e2885>