svn commit: r185435 - in head: lib/libc/sys lib/libkvm share/man/man4 sys/compat/freebsd32 sys/kern sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/security/mac_bsdextended sys/sys usr.bin/cpuset usr.sbin/jai...

[James Gritton]

Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz at FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>>   Jails can have an unrestricted (no duplicate protection, etc.) name
>>>   in addition to the hostname. The jail name cannot be changed from
>>>   within a jail and is considered to be used for management purposes
>>>   or as audit-token in the future.
>>
>> Is there a specific reason why we allow duplicates?
>
> Yes, so that people have a choice.
>
> You would have to take into account "DYING" jails with possibly
> duplicate names anyway.
>
> And it's a purely administrative name (cannot be changed from within
> the jail) so it's up to the administrator to have 2 "Customer Webserver"
> jails or a "Customer Webserver Tin" and a "Customer Webserver Box".
>
> BTW. in case people wonder how to set it (atm.) from rc.conf, you
> can use jail_<name>_flags.

My new (upcoming) jail framework patches also support names, but without 
allowing duplicates.  This is necessary because jails can be looked up 
in the kernel by name as well as by ID.  I handle the special case of 
"dying" jails, allowing a new jail to duplicate the name of one on the 
the way out.

As far as people having a choice, I don't see any more reason to offer 
the choice of duplicate jail names than I do in offering duplicate login 
names.  It just doesn't make sense in the context of what purpose I 
expect a name to serve.

- Jamie