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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:39:15 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>, "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, liran.alon@...cle.com, si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com> Subject: Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework) On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: > Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining > issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed > cleanly, see: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268 > > The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was > not specifically writtten for such kernel automatic enslavement. > Specifically, if it is a bond or team, the slave would typically get > renamed *before* virtual device gets created, that's what udev can > control (without getting netdev opened early by the other part of > kernel) and other userspace components for e.g. initramfs, > init-scripts can coordinate well in between. The in-kernel > auto-enslavement of net_failover breaks this userspace convention, > which don't provides a solution if user care about consistent naming > on the slave netdevs specifically. > > Previously this issue had been specifically called out when IFF_HIDDEN > and the 1-netdev was proposed, but no one gives out a solution to this > problem ever since. Please share your mind how to proceed and solve > this userspace issue if netdev does not welcome a 1-netdev model. Above says: there's no motivation in the systemd/udevd community at this point to refactor the rename logic and make it work well with 3-netdev. What would the fix be? Skip slave devices? -- MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists