Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:31:33 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Marko Zec <zec@icir.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Marko Zec <zec@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 127942 for review Message-ID: <471E7645.1030503@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200710232314.38149.zec@icir.org> References: <200710230018.l9N0IO8l020652@repoman.freebsd.org> <471D4514.5050109@elischer.org> <200710232314.38149.zec@icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marko Zec wrote: > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 02:49:24 Julian Elischer wrote: >> question: >> >> can processes in two vimages communicate if they both have access >> to the same named pipe/fifo in the filesystem? > > Yes, provided that they open the fifo while they would be both attached > to the same vnet. Once the sockets would become open the processes > could reassociate to arbitrary vimages, while the sockets would remain > bound to their original vnets for their entire lifetime duration. hmm that's not what I want... what I want is an ability for processes in two overlapping vimages to communicate easily without incuring the overhead of going throigh a virtual router. another possibility is a local: interface (address 127.1.[vnet number]) which acts like a local net between the virtual machines. > > As an alternative, we could / should introduce an extended socket() > syscall where an additional argument would explicitly specify to which > vimage/vnet the new socket should belong. if a process in the root vimage makes fifo in /vimages/vimage1/usr/tmp/fifo1 and a process in vimage1 (that is chrooted at /vimages/vimage1/) opens the fifo at /usr/tmp/fifo1 why can't they communicate? I'm surprised at this.. > > Marko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?471E7645.1030503>