netdev - Re: [PATCH] udev: create empty regular files to represent netinterfaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091030170548.GB4547@lackof.org>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:05:48 -0600
From:	dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>
To:	Narendra_K@...l.com
Cc:	greg@...ah.com, Matt_Domsch@...l.com, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jordan_Hargrave@...l.com, Charles_Rose@...l.com,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udev: create empty regular files to represent
	netinterfaces

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:23:57PM +0530, Narendra_K@...l.com wrote:
> 
> >> >There are two issues, which really seem distinct to me.
> >> >
> >> >Users expect eth0 to map to first-onboard-nic. That's an installer 
> >> >issue (since the BIOS can already export this info) and I 
> >agree that 
> >> >if we want to "fix" that, we should fix it there.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I agree that installers have to be fixed in the sense that 
> >they can be 
> >> told to find the right interface. But, they expect determinism and 
> >> depend on "eth0 to map to first-onboard-nic". Installer is 
> >one of the 
> >> applications that is affected by this and needs user 
> >intervention, if 
> >> it is not told about the right interface. I discussed 
> >installer as it 
> >> is so much part of a user experience.
> >
> >Right, but couldn't the installer do the work of scanning the 
> >SMBIOS to figure out which nics are onboard, and reorder the 
> >'eth*' names such that these are first? This state could then 
> >be written out as udev rules so that they persist across reboots.
> >
> 
> I suppose, with udev loading modules, the rules generated at runtime
> could run into the problem of duplicate names, if names are reordered in
> the kernel namespace. (I.e the eth* namespace). Hence idea of an
> alternate namespace.

I don't see a risk of duplicate names - after all drivers are loaded,
the installer can take the names enumerated by the kernel, figure out
what it thinks a preferrable order is (i.e. by querying SMBIOS), then
change the kernel names/mac mapping appropriately. Where can a
duplicate name become an issue using this method?

-- 
dann frazier

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html