How to implement jail-aware SysV IPC (with my nasty patch)

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:10 , kikuchan at uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +0000, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> removed hackers, added virtualization.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuchan at 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