Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation.

From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek (nick_at_garage.freebsd.pl)
Date: 06/25/03

  • Next message: Dmitry Sivachenko: "Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation." 
    Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:02:21 +0200
To: Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@freebsd.org>

    On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:52:33PM +0400, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
    +> > But you got still *one* memory zones for every jail and main host.
    +>
    +> Yes, that is exactly what I want.
    +> This is similar to separate IP stack for each jail: this is more powerful
    +> solution, but more expensive (uses more kernel memory).

    But note that my implementation allocates memory "on demand".
    If IPC syscall will not be used inside of jail memory will not be allocated.
    If think also that this will be trivial to add value to jail struct
    that will thell if we want separate IPC memory zones for this jail or not.

    +> Jail is not a true virtual machine.
    +> Let's keep it a *light* virtual machine replacement, with single IP stack,
    +> one memory zones for all jails and host, etc.

    I think it should be and it isn't now because of implementaion problems.
    Am I wrong? Poul? Robert? 

    -- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       pawel@dawidek.net
UNIX Systems Programmer/Administrator     http://garage.freebsd.pl
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!                     http://cerber.sourceforge.net

  • Next message: Dmitry Sivachenko: "Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation.
      ... +>>> Some time ago I've implemented private memory zones for IPC mechism. ... +>>> Every jail and main host got its own memory for IPC operations. ... But you got still *one* memory zones for every jail and main host. ...
      (freebsd-arch)
    • Jails - Pseudo Interfaces/ Virtual Networks - Best Practices?
      ... I'm in the process of planning a transition from VMWare (on CentOS host) hosting service-specific FreeBSD virtual machines to the seemingly more efficient, stable, and lower maintenance cost approach, now that I've figured out at least some of the "magic" of creating jails under FreeBSD. ... The questions generally relate to being able to consistently identify traffic from/to the jails, inside and outside the jail host, with tools such as ipfw and tcpdump. ... With VMWare, I was used to being able to create a pseudo-interface that could be "wired" to a virtual "switch" and then that switch could be bridged to a physical interface. ... Here DNS needs to be run for the host itself only, to be able to start up NTP and allow ssh connections for management over the "protected" interface. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: carp+pfsync+freevrrpd+jail
      ... no traffic appears on master host - that means that the local carp ... host will answer the request. ... In case service IP is local it just dealing with jail. ... If only master carp answering packets then packet, coming from internal vlan200 comes to host: ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: Fw: Re: vimage-assigning interface to jail
      ... ping: sendto: No route to host ... The jail environment is: ... I do have vimage-enabled kernels on both the host and the jails. ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: problems with jail
      ... Active Internet connections (including servers) ... Unfortunately I still cant connect to anything outside of the jail, ... SSHing into jail does not work, into host does. ... a separate sshd listening on the jail port 22. ...
      (freebsd-questions)