netdev - Re: [iproute2] finding the name of a TAP created with %d

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:22:31 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Alyssa Ross <hi@...ssa.is>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [iproute2] finding the name of a TAP created with %d

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:42:40 +0000
Alyssa Ross <hi@...ssa.is> wrote:

> If I do
> 
> 	ip tuntap add name tap%d mode tap
> 
> then a TAP device with a name like "tap0", "tap1", etc. will be created.
> But there's no way for me to find out which name was chosen for the
> device created by that command.

Use a follow on ip link show or look in sysfs.

> Perhaps ip should print the name of tuntap devices after they're
> created?

You can already do that with followon command, or use batch to put two commands together.


> I'd be interested in sending a patch, but I'd need some guidance on how
> exactly it should work.  Would there be any harm in always printing it?
> Should it be behind a flag?  Or just when the name contains a `%'?

Printing the result would make ip tuntap behave differently, which makes
it unique (snowflakes are bad) and would break users scripts.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped