From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 25 16:22:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EB94F37B401; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [212.192.164.5])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8225643FE0; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru)
Received: from mail by mx.nsu.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 19VJip-0007su-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:30:39 +0700
Received: from iclub.nsu.ru ([193.124.215.97] ident=root)
	by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 19VJhA-0007f6-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:28:56 +0700
Received: from iclub.nsu.ru (fjoe@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by iclub.nsu.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PNKjMk093607;
	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:45 +0700 (NSS)
	(envelope-from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru)
Received: (from fjoe@localhost)
	by iclub.nsu.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5PNKj5w093606;
	Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:45 +0700 (NSS)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:45 +0700
From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
To: Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030625232045.GB92939@iclub.nsu.ru>
References: <20030624164602.GW7587@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<20030625135106.GA19868@fling-wing.demos.su>
	<20030625140518.GA23435@fling-wing.demos.su>
	<20030625144849.GJ7587@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<20030625145233.GA28322@fling-wing.demos.su>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030625145233.GA28322@fling-wing.demos.su>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Envelope-To: demon@freebsd.org,
 nick@garage.freebsd.pl,
 freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=0.13.6.3
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-106.0 required=5.0
	tests=BOGOFILTER_TEST_PASS,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,
	      REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT,
	      USER_IN_WHITELIST
	version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:22:41 -0000

hi, there!

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:52:33PM +0400, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:

> Yes, that is exactly what I want.
> This is similar to separate IP stack for each jail:  this is more powerful
> solution, but more expensive (uses more kernel memory).
> 
> Jail is not a true virtual machine.
> Let's keep it a *light* virtual machine replacement, with single IP stack,
> one memory zones for all jails and host, etc.

btw I know of two projects whose goal is IP stack virtualization for jail.
Virtual IP stack (as well as virtualized sysvipc with separate
memory zones) can be quite useful. Can provide two solutions?

- with shared memory zone (for those who want "light" version)
- with separate memory zones (for people who want to keep
sysvipc fully separated, i.e. one user can't exhaust all sysvipc resources
and make sysvipc unusable for second user)

/fjoe