|
On 30.03.2016 17:26, Thomas Haller
wrote:
Hi,6. Certain aspects of NMManager are global for every network namespace, others are not. For example, sleeping state (or should it be separate for every network namespace so that some network namespaces can be suspended?). 7. Related to 7, the best approach would be to refactor NMManager itself, but that would make very hard to keep HEAD and MIF branches in sync.Right, this was the biggest confusion I had. Your NMNetns takes over some work of NMManager, while NMManager is global. I guess that makes sense. But currently it's unclear which instance (NMManager, NMNetnsController, NMNetns, NMPolicy) does what, and how the interact with namespaces. I think this is difficult to get right. I think that NMNetns should be as simple as possible and more tell NMManager what to do.If you make NMNetns as simple as possible then NMManager must take care of network related changes within different network namespaces, i.e. new devices, IP addresses,etc. This, in turn, migh require all the methods from NMManager to be extended with additional argument - network namespace - which could possibly complicate things. It seems to me that it is lot easier to basically transform NMManager into NMNetns because root network namespace is just one possible network namespace. All the current functionality done by NMManager within root network namespace should be done in every network namespace. Of course, NMManager should stay, but only with the functionality common to all network namespaces.Now, it could be that the approach of making NMNetns as simple as possible is better approach, but only way to find out is to try to make it so - which I think is non-trivial.So NMNetns is basically becoming what NMManager is with all the per- namespace responsibilities. Makes sense. NMManager stays to be a global manager (intra-namespace). I dislike that the name "NMNetns" is a prefix of "NMNetnsController", but why is NMNetnsController a separate object? It doesn't have much code and it also has it's own D-Bus path. Maybe those properties and functions should be merged into the NMManager object. Moving large parts of NMManager to NMNetns is probably the right solution, but a bit hard to develop in parallel as master progresses. If that is done, then there is no need for NMNetnsController because its functionality should be implemented in NMManager. I have one problem now. Namely, function _is_root in NMNetns doesn't work, or am I doing something wrong? When constructing NMNetnsController object the first NMNetns is created and that one should be for root network namespace. I'm using _is_root() to skip device initialization (for root that is done by NMManager now) but _is_root() returns FALSE? The code with my changes to your branch is on the following URL: https://github.com/sgros/NETNS_NetworkManager SG |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature