[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170810141018.GC24790@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:10:18 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: ???????????? <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces
> >> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
> >> the change?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > man 8 dhclient-script
> >
> > The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get
> > the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if
> > they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
>
> Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is
> running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down
> during the run or do some other configuration, right?
dhclient already handles the interface going down. sendto/recvfrom
fails and returns an error code. As far as i remember, dhclient then
exits.
> Running multiple configuration tools at the same moment is a bad
> idea, you never know what you're gonna end up with.
It could be argued that configuring an interface vs renaming an
interface are at different levels.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists