netdev - Re: [RFC] longer netdev names proposal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190628162716.GF29149@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:27:16 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] longer netdev names proposal

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:55:53PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:14:01PM CEST, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
> >
> >What is your user case for having multiple IFLA_ALT_NAME for the same
> >IFLA_NAME?
> 
> I don't know about specific usecase for having more. Perhaps Michal
> does.

One use case that comes to my mind are the "predictable names"
implemented by udev/systemd which can be based on different naming
schemes (bus address, BIOS numbering, MAC address etc.) and it's not
always obvious which scheme is going to be used. I have even seen
multiple times that one schemed was used during system installation and
another in the installed system so that network configuration created by
installer did not work.

For block devices, current practice is not to rename the device and only
create multiple symlinks based on different naming schemes (by id, by
uuid, by label, etc.). With support for multiple altnames, we could also
identify the network device in different ways (all applicable ones).

Michal