From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 21:30:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DB5106566B; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A0F8FC13; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E4241C750; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUcX3Ux6sb5v; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 2D54F41C75A; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040224448F3; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 -0000 On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi Julian, > We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next > big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow > jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices.. > > for example > > pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get committed?) but > pfsync > and pflog use special devices in /dev. > > similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means they are > still useful. > > so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail creates a > cloning device? > should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail? > and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing the same > /dev? > > > I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities. > > should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that would make > 'per jail' entries? i.e. tun0 would be a different device depending on what > jail > you were in looking at the /dev? For a discussion summary that sounds sparse unless it was only a short brainstorming;-) Can you please elaborate on the "we" and other "use cases" as this really sounds like a per-interface decision to me and there might be work in progress from multiple people already. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life. Going to jail sucks -- All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html