| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091106231716.GJ29251@ldl.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:17:16 -0700
From: dann frazier <dannf@...com>
To: Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>, Narendra_K@...l.com,
bryan@...zban.is-a-geek.net, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org,
Jordan_Hargrave@...l.com, Charles_Rose@...l.com,
Sandeep_K_Shandilya@...l.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: Network Device Naming mechanism and policy
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 06, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com> wrote:
>
> > > As a distribution developer I highly value solutions like this which do
> > > not require patching every application which deals with interface names
> > > and then teaching users about aliases which only work in some places and
> > > are unknown to the kernel.
> > Fair enough - but would you object if we changed the naming scheme
> > from eth%d to something else?
> I suppose that this would depend on what else. :-)
> Since you want radical changes I recommend that you design the new
> persistent naming infrastructure in a way that will allow root to choose
> to use the classic naming scheme, or many users will scream a lot and at
> least some distributions will do it anyway.
> I also expect that providing choice at the beginning of development may
> lead to more acceptance later if and when the new scheme will have
> proved itself to be superior (at least in some situations).
> You have tought about this for a long time and if so far you have not
> found a solution which is widely considered superior then I doubt that
> one will appear soon. Providing your favourite naming scheme as an
> optional add on will immediately benefit those who like it and greatly
> reduce opposition from those who do not.
This seems to me like a good installer feature - give the user an
option to enter a name for an interface, with the default option
to use the eth* names. To illustrate by example, I imagine an
installer flow that looks like this:
[Do Hardware Discovery]
[Automatically reorder kernel names for reasonable defaults;
eth0-eth{n-1} map to n onboard nics]
Sample user interface for network configuration:
------------Choose an interface to configure --------------
| Multiple unconfigured interfaces detected. |
| Select an interface to configure by: |
| 1. Kernel name (eth0, eth1, etc) |
| 2. Mac Address |
| 3. Chassis name |
| 4. PCI Slot |
-----------------------------------------------------------
----Choose an interface to configure (by chassis name)-----
| 1. LOM0 |
| 2. LOM1 |
| 3. Undefined |
| 4. Undefined |
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------Name interface - (chassis name LOM0)-------
| Name to use for this interface [eth0]: __mynet0_ |
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Configure interface - mynet0 |
| 1. DHCP |
| 2. Static |
| ... |
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Generate udev rules that bind the user-selected name to
the user-selected attribute]
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists