Le 03/03/2017 à 17:03, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
> Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 04:19:13PM CET, nicolas.dich...@6wind.com wrote:
>> Le 02/03/2017 à 21:39, Dan Geist a écrit :
[snip]
>>>> NETIF_F_NETNS_LOCAL was introduced for loopback device which
>>>> is created for each netns, it is not clear why we need to add it to bond
>>>> and bridge...
>>>
>>> Thank you for tracking this down. Without digging through the code to
>>> figure it out, does this imply that the existence of a bond interface is
>>> not possible AT ALL within a netns or simply that it may not be "migrated"
>>> between the global scope and a netns?
>> It means that the migration is not possible. I think the only reason to have
>> this flag on bonding and bridge is the lack of test and fix. There is
>> probably
>> some work to be done to have this feature. But are there real use cases of
>> x-netns bonding or x-netns bridge?
>
> If that use case exists I believe it is an abuse. Soft devices that are
> by definition in upper-lower relationships with other devices should not
> move to other namespaces. Prevents all kinds of issues. If you need a
> soft device like bridge of bond within a namespace, just create it there.
>
Note that vlan supports x-netns. And I think that the corresponding use cases
are valid ;-)
But I agree that for bonding and bridge it seems wrong.
