Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Define Linux Network Devices #1271
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Define Linux Network Devices #1271
Changes from all commits
1fac043
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, what happens if container's init has exited or is killed (by means other than
runtime kill
)?Documentation (
network_namespaces(7)
) says that "When a network namespace is freed (i.e., when the last process in the namespace terminates), its physical network devices are moved back to the initial network namespace".Currently,
runc
has no way of monitoring when a container exits. Meaning, it won't be able to perform those cleanups written as a MUST here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this point had a large debate, see #1271 (comment) , I initially suggested a MAY because I'm not fully familiar with all the runtimes details and diversity so I think relaxing this requirement will be simpler, but the feedback from the reviews indicated that MUST be preferred.
@kolyshkin is acceptable to rewrite this as:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does the map order matter? If so, implementation can be complicated for Go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the linux kernel guarantees the uniqueness of the name in the runtime namespace, so a set is ok. Order is not important , each network device should be independent of each other ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we recommend a runtime performs a uniqueness check as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Uniqueness inside container should be checked, e.g. that rename operation was successful
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added more text to clarify runtime checks and network devices lifecycle, PTAL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the runtime expected to set this? It looks like it is. Let us say that in the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the input to the runtime, the runtime may choose how to set them meanwhile is consistent.
The context is that from kubernetes we got bitten by this, so is a recommendation because we find very hard to enforce this as input as it may break some clients , more context in https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/04/19/curl-those-funny-ipv4-addresses/