From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-dev-return-5491-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis.ws5.connectedcommunity.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65D89860E5 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 01:39:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:39:15 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20190221203808-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1523386790-12396-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1523386790-12396-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180410142608.50f15b45@xeon-e3> <20180411075334.GK2028@nanopsycho> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: [virtio-dev] 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) To: Siwei Liu Cc: Jiri Pirko , Stephen Hemminger , Sridhar Samudrala , David Miller , Netdev , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , Jason Wang , liran.alon@oracle.com, si-wei liu List-ID: 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org