man: elaborate a bit on the effect of PrivateNetwork=

Triggered by this thread:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2018-July/040992.html
This commit is contained in:
Lennart Poettering 2018-07-12 21:03:53 +02:00
parent 06c28aa0d8
commit 9236cabf78
1 changed files with 7 additions and 3 deletions

View File

@ -1046,9 +1046,13 @@ BindReadOnlyPaths=/var/lib/systemd</programlisting>
Defaults to false. It is possible to run two or more units within the same private network namespace by using
the <varname>JoinsNamespaceOf=</varname> directive, see
<citerefentry><refentrytitle>systemd.unit</refentrytitle><manvolnum>5</manvolnum></citerefentry> for
details. Note that this option will disconnect all socket families from the host, this includes AF_NETLINK and
AF_UNIX. The latter has the effect that AF_UNIX sockets in the abstract socket namespace will become
unavailable to the processes (however, those located in the file system will continue to be accessible).</para>
details. Note that this option will disconnect all socket families from the host, including
<constant>AF_NETLINK</constant> and <constant>AF_UNIX</constant>. Effectively, for
<constant>AF_NETLINK</constant> this means that device configuration events received from
<citerefentry><refentrytitle>systemd-udevd.service</refentrytitle><manvolnum>8</manvolnum></citerefentry> are
not delivered to the unit's processes. And for <constant>AF_UNIX</constant> this has the effect that
<constant>AF_UNIX</constant> sockets in the abstract socket namespace of the host will become unavailable to
the unit's processes (however, those located in the file system will continue to be accessible).</para>
<para>Note that the implementation of this setting might be impossible (for example if network namespaces are
not available), and the unit should be written in a way that does not solely rely on this setting for