diff mbox

[6/6] netns: configurable number of initial network namespaces

Message ID 20081028174659.GF8471@thomson.net
State Deferred, archived
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show

Commit Message

Vivien Chappelier Oct. 28, 2008, 5:46 p.m. UTC 
This allows the creation of more than one network namespace at boot time.
---
 net/Kconfig              |    7 +++++++
 net/core/net_namespace.c |   19 ++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Comments

Patrick McHardy Oct. 28, 2008, 5:51 p.m. UTC | #1 
Vivien Chappelier wrote:
> This allows the creation of more than one network namespace at boot time.

I'm wondering, what is the advantage over creating them manually?
They have to be configured by userspace to be useful anyway, don't
they?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Vivien Chappelier Oct. 28, 2008, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi,

    Yes; the linux-vrf patches had a new netlink message to 
create/remove the equivalent of a network namespace (ip vrf add 1). I've 
not ported this feature yet, so this patch is meant to provide another 
way of setting up networking stacks without the need for a new process 
for each stack. The ability to dynamically create/remove networking 
stacks from userspace would definitely be useful.
    There are also some very minor advantages in creating the namespaces 
statically at boot time, such as increasing the chances that the 
allocation works (though network namespaces are quite small), and 
improving boot time by avoiding a few calls to /sbin/ip on startup. 
Since we are running on embedded devices, that is something that matter 
to us, but it may not be enough to justify the need for this feature. 
Anyway, I do not think it hurts to have the ability to create static 
networking stacks at boot time.

regards,
Vivien.

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Vivien Chappelier wrote:
>> This allows the creation of more than one network namespace at boot 
>> time.
>
> I'm wondering, what is the advantage over creating them manually?
> They have to be configured by userspace to be useful anyway, don't
> they?
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Patrick McHardy Oct. 28, 2008, 6:21 p.m. UTC | #3 
Vivien Chappelier wrote:
>    Yes; the linux-vrf patches had a new netlink message to create/remove 
> the equivalent of a network namespace (ip vrf add 1). I've not ported 
> this feature yet, so this patch is meant to provide another way of 
> setting up networking stacks without the need for a new process for each 
> stack. The ability to dynamically create/remove networking stacks from 
> userspace would definitely be useful.

I see, I didn't realize the process that created a namespace
needs to be kept running. So yes, creating standalone network
namespaces seems to make sense.

>    There are also some very minor advantages in creating the namespaces 
> statically at boot time, such as increasing the chances that the 
> allocation works (though network namespaces are quite small), and 
> improving boot time by avoiding a few calls to /sbin/ip on startup. 
> Since we are running on embedded devices, that is something that matter 
> to us, but it may not be enough to justify the need for this feature. 
> Anyway, I do not think it hurts to have the ability to create static 
> networking stacks at boot time.

I don't have an opinion on this. Thanks for the explanation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric W. Biederman Oct. 30, 2008, 10:41 p.m. UTC | #4 
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> writes:

> Vivien Chappelier wrote:
>>    Yes; the linux-vrf patches had a new netlink message to create/remove the
>> equivalent of a network namespace (ip vrf add 1). I've not ported this feature
>> yet, so this patch is meant to provide another way of setting up networking
>> stacks without the need for a new process for each stack. The ability to
>> dynamically create/remove networking stacks from userspace would definitely be
>> useful.
>
> I see, I didn't realize the process that created a namespace
> needs to be kept running. So yes, creating standalone network
> namespaces seems to make sense

To be clear a reference needs to be kept to the network namespace.
Either by being the network namespace that new sockets are created in
task->nsproxy->netns or the network namespace of an open socket sock_net(sk).

If neither of those two conditions hold the network namespace count drops to
zero and it will be freed.  Probably not ideal if you are just doing routing.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/net/Kconfig b/net/Kconfig
index 8c3d97c..c896bdf 100644
--- a/net/Kconfig
+++ b/net/Kconfig
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@  config NET_NS
 	  Allow user space to create what appear to be multiple instances
 	  of the network stack.
 
+config NET_NS_NR
+	int "Initial number of network namespaces"
+	default 1
+	depends on NET_NS
+	help
+	  Number of network stacks to create at start-up.
+
 source "net/packet/Kconfig"
 source "net/unix/Kconfig"
 source "net/xfrm/Kconfig"
diff --git a/net/core/net_namespace.c b/net/core/net_namespace.c
index 596cb83..1cafa31 100644
--- a/net/core/net_namespace.c
+++ b/net/core/net_namespace.c
@@ -297,8 +297,25 @@  static int __init net_ns_init(void)
 	rtnl_unlock();
 
 	mutex_unlock(&net_mutex);
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_NET_NS) && CONFIG_NET_NS_NR > 1
+	/* Create additional initial namespaces */
+	{
+		struct net *net;
+		int i;
+
+		for (i = 1; i < CONFIG_NET_NS_NR; i++) {
+			net = copy_net_ns(CLONE_NEWNET, &init_net);
+			if (IS_ERR(net)) {
+				err = PTR_ERR(net);
+				break;
+			}
+		}
+	}
+#endif
+
 	if (err)
-		panic("Could not setup the initial network namespace");
+		panic("Could not setup the initial network namespace(s)");
 
 	return 0;
 }