On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 02:36:07PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 10:43:23AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 12:16:47PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 10:30:28AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 10:55:17AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 04:00:46PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > > > > vsock network namespaces let a host put each VM in a namespace of > > > > > > its > > > > > > own. A guest has no equivalent yet. It has a single G2H device that > > > > > > cannot be assigned to a network namespace. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this, I'll do a proper review next week, in the mean time > > > > > some > > > > > comments below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series lets a guest move that device into a network namespace. > > > > > > A > > > > > > new ioctl on /dev/vsock, IOCTL_VM_SOCKETS_ASSIGN_G2H_NETNS, assigns > > > > > > the > > > > > > device to the namespace of the calling process. The namespace's > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > Why an ioctl? > > > > > > > > > > I'm asking because I'd like to know if you've already considered any > > > > > alternatives (sysfs, netlink, etc.) > > > > > > > > > > How do you think the ioctl should be used? Should we provide an > > > > > userspace > > > > > tool, or extending some existing tools? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Stefano > > > > > > > > Really only because /dev/vsock exists and the prior series used it. > > > > > > Yeah, I vaguely remember that we may have discussed switching to netlink > > > in > > > that thread, but I can't find it. > > > > > > > > > > > Considering netlink, it might be the better option because there is a > > > > lot of prior art solving problems we might have in the future. For > > > > example, I was thinking about when users suddenly lose access to vsock, > > > > with just the current assign ioctl there is no way for apps or users to > > > > figure out why this happened. We can have an ioctl() setter for user, > > > > but in netdev world users can actually get a notification via netlink as > > > > to which namespace the device went to and what its ifindex is there (see > > > > __dev_change_net_namespace() for the RTM_DELLINK and RTM_NEWLINK > > > > messages). There is probably more, but that's the case that comes to > > > > mind. > > > > > > netlink seems like the right way to go, do you think it'll be a real pain > > > to > > > implement? > > > > It is really not bad... it'll include a yaml spec in > > Documentation/netlink/specs/ of call names and perms, a new target for > > generated code in the Makefile, a handler, and then > > tools/net/ynl/ynl-regen.sh generates the plumbing. > > Ah, nice! So, do you want to try that direction? > > Thanks, > Stefano >
Let's give it a go. I have a draft of it for v2 and looks reasonable to me. Best, Bobby
