Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:09:29 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization Message-ID: <4CDF0C99.5080201@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/13/10 1:30 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > 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. It was only a short discussion among "non developers" during a short breakout session. the session was "what is this VIMAGE/jails thing"? and was not a dev-summit meeting but an "introduction to vimage" for end users. During the discussion people were asking questions that they had. Some of the questions I could answer well but others resulted in discussions that ended up with things like, "we you could do that but that would require that you had a different /dev/pfsync for each jail, and we have no way to do that yet". I promised the group that after the meeting I would bring up the topic with other interested developers... so here we are.. > > /bz >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CDF0C99.5080201>