> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:10 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +0000, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" > <bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> removed hackers, added virtualization. >> >> >>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should >>> be. >> >> The best way probably is to finally get the “common” VIMAGE framework into >> HEAD to allow easy virtualisation of other services. That work has been >> sitting in perforce for a few years and simply needs updating for sysctls I >> think. >> >> Then use that to virtualise things and have a vipc like we have vnets. The >> good news is that you have identified most places and have the cleanup >> functions already so it’d be a matter of transforming your changes (assuming >> they are correct and working fine; haven’t actually read the patch in >> detail;-) to the different infrastructure. And that’s the easiest part. >> >> >> Bjoern > > Hi Bjoern, > Thank you for your reply. > > The "common" VIMAGE framework sounds good, I really want it. > > I want to know what the IPC system looks like for user-land after virtualized, > and what happen if vnet like vipc is implemented. > > For example, jail 1, 2, 3 join vipc group A, and jail 4, 5, 6 join vipc group > B ?? > Hmm, it looks good.
That’s not exactly how it works currently and I think the mixing of options will be harder and something we’l have to figure out more carefully. You would be able to say jail 1 has a vipc and jail 2 and 3 and “child jails” and inherit it. (similar for 4 + 5,6) so it’s nested but not side-by-side. If we want more of the “mixing” and independentness we’ll have to re-think the way we “manage” jails. Bjoern _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
