From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 27 13:56:41 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67951065676;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A898FC34;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4949846B96;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <slrnfumgvp.25r3.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
Message-ID: <20080327135318.R73942@fledge.watson.org>
References: <47E9448F.1010304@ipfw.ru>
	<20080326142115.K34007@fledge.watson.org>
	<slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
	<20080327062556.GE3180@home.opsec.eu>
	<slrnfumgvp.25r3.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: unionfs status
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:41 -0000


On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Vadim Goncharov wrote:

>> Thanks for this description. So we basically have two different uses for 
>> UNIX sockets in unionfs with jails ?
>
>> 1) socket in jail to communicate only inside one jail (syslog-case) 2) 
>> socket in jail as a means of IPC between different jails (mysql-case)
>
>> Is 2) really supposed to work like this ?
>
> This is user's/admin's point of view, that it should work this way: one 
> mysql with one socket for several jails. I don't know all gory details about 
> how code really works.

As I see it, nullfs should provide a shared socket, it is intended to provide 
access to the same object, and unionfs should provide independent sockets, as 
unionfs is intended to provide isolation.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge