PERFORCE change 127942 for review

[Julian Elischer]

Marko Zec wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007 02:49:24 Julian Elischer wrote:
>> question:
>>
>> can processes in two vimages communicate if they both have access
>> to the same named pipe/fifo in the filesystem?
> 
> Yes, provided that they open the fifo while they would be both attached 
> to the same vnet.  Once the sockets would become open the processes 
> could reassociate to arbitrary vimages, while the sockets would remain 
> bound to their original vnets for their entire lifetime duration.
hmm that's not what I want... what I want is an ability for processes in two overlapping
vimages to communicate easily without incuring the overhead of going throigh a virtual router.
another possibility is a local: interface (address 127.1.[vnet number]) which acts like
a local net  between the virtual machines.

> 
> As an alternative, we could / should introduce an extended socket() 
> syscall where an additional argument would explicitly specify to which 
> vimage/vnet the new socket should belong.

if a process in the root vimage makes fifo in /vimages/vimage1/usr/tmp/fifo1

and a process in vimage1 (that is chrooted at /vimages/vimage1/)
opens the fifo at /usr/tmp/fifo1

why can't they communicate?  I'm surprised at this..

> 
> Marko