Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "vhost_vsock_netns_minor".
2020 Apr 27
4
[PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace
...d a new /dev/vhost-vsock-netns to allow
userspace application to use this new feature, leaving to
/dev/vhost-vsock the previous behavior (guest reachable from any
netns).
I like this approach, but I had these doubts:
- I need to allocate a new minor for that device (e.g.
VHOST_VSOCK_NETNS_MINOR) or is there an alternative way that I can
use?
- It is vhost-vsock specific, should we provide something handled in
the vsock core, maybe centralizing the CID allocation and adding a
new IOCTL or rtnetlink message like for the guest side?
(maybe it could be a second st...
2020 Apr 27
4
[PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace
...d a new /dev/vhost-vsock-netns to allow
userspace application to use this new feature, leaving to
/dev/vhost-vsock the previous behavior (guest reachable from any
netns).
I like this approach, but I had these doubts:
- I need to allocate a new minor for that device (e.g.
VHOST_VSOCK_NETNS_MINOR) or is there an alternative way that I can
use?
- It is vhost-vsock specific, should we provide something handled in
the vsock core, maybe centralizing the CID allocation and adding a
new IOCTL or rtnetlink message like for the guest side?
(maybe it could be a second st...
2020 Apr 27
0
[PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace
...> userspace application to use this new feature, leaving to
> /dev/vhost-vsock the previous behavior (guest reachable from any
> netns).
>
> I like this approach, but I had these doubts:
>
> - I need to allocate a new minor for that device (e.g.
> VHOST_VSOCK_NETNS_MINOR) or is there an alternative way that I can
> use?
Not that I see. I agree it's a bit annoying. I'll think about it a bit.
> - It is vhost-vsock specific, should we provide something handled in
> the vsock core, maybe centralizing the CID allocation and adding a
&g...
2020 Apr 28
0
[PATCH net-next 0/3] vsock: support network namespace
...userspace application to use this new feature, leaving to
> /dev/vhost-vsock the previous behavior (guest reachable from any
> netns).
>
> I like this approach, but I had these doubts:
>
> - I need to allocate a new minor for that device (e.g.
> VHOST_VSOCK_NETNS_MINOR) or is there an alternative way that I can
> use?
>
> - It is vhost-vsock specific, should we provide something handled in
> the vsock core, maybe centralizing the CID allocation and adding a
> new IOCTL or rtnetlink message like for the guest side?
>...