From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Harvell Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: enhance addr label validation Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:02:47 -0500 Message-ID: <55101D07.6090301@tekcomms.com> References: <550DD13D.90009@tekcomms.com> <20150323011522.GB20755@vergenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Stephen Hemminger , Vadim Kochan To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from mail-bn1on0134.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.110.134]:53792 "EHLO na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751873AbbCWOEU (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:04:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150323011522.GB20755@vergenet.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Hi Joe, > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:14:53PM -0500, Joe Harvell wrote: >> The ip addr command today rejects address labels that would break >> ifconfig. However, it allows some labels which still break it. Enhance >> enforcement to reject all known incompatible labels, and allow the >> existing -force option to allow someone to use a label even if it is not >> ifconfig compatible > I am concerned this will break existing users who are relying on setting > labels that would now be rejected without using -force. > [snip] Simon, Good point. I propose the following: When a label is specified without -force, and that label begins with the interface name but is followed by something other than a colon, accept the label but emit a warning message indicating this label is incompatible with ifconfig and that later versions of the 'ip address' command may reject it. This message can also indicate that -force can be specified to explicitly indicate a label that is non ifconfig compatible is desired. At some point in the future, the behavior could then be changed to reject such labels. What do you think? --- Joe