[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55101D07.6090301@tekcomms.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:02:47 -0500
From: Joe Harvell <joe.harvell@...comms.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
Vadim Kochan <vadim4j@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: enhance addr label validation
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:14:53PM -0500, Joe Harvell wrote:
>> The ip addr command today rejects address labels that would break
>> ifconfig. However, it allows some labels which still break it. Enhance
>> enforcement to reject all known incompatible labels, and allow the
>> existing -force option to allow someone to use a label even if it is not
>> ifconfig compatible
> I am concerned this will break existing users who are relying on setting
> labels that would now be rejected without using -force.
>
[snip]
Simon,
Good point. I propose the following:
When a label is specified without -force, and that label begins with the
interface
name but is followed by something other than a colon, accept the label
but emit
a warning message indicating this label is incompatible with ifconfig
and that later
versions of the 'ip address' command may reject it. This message can
also indicate
that -force can be specified to explicitly indicate a label that is non
ifconfig compatible
is desired.
At some point in the future, the behavior could then be changed to
reject such labels.
What do you think?
---
Joe
--
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