From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: hide devices starting with period by default Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 13:47:36 -0600 Message-ID: <01aa60dc-8bf2-3207-1abe-158100f52960@gmail.com> References: <027775d1-ef98-deda-1f8d-bb058d1e4c2f@cumulusnetworks.com> <20170223163035.0a49f04d@xeon-e3> <13cec1c2-88f4-e61d-02ee-dc01ccee7281@cumulusnetworks.com> <20170223.221257.795227595252531962.davem@redhat.com> <0a8e1cf0-9f30-2356-5168-a97abb86d5c2@cumulusnetworks.com> <0635d3bb-0d8d-7ab6-fb53-4d84f979a023@6wind.com> <4bbb7a19-1b0b-8c9a-7e74-82ee146cf48c@gmail.com> <26442035-25fd-ff9a-2804-ed21ec6198cf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: David Miller , stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Fainelli , nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:36790 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628AbdEDTrj (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2017 15:47:39 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v14so3298323pfd.3 for ; Thu, 04 May 2017 12:47:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <26442035-25fd-ff9a-2804-ed21ec6198cf@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/4/17 1:10 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 05/04/2017 09:37 AM, David Ahern wrote: >> On 5/4/17 9:15 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >>> Le 24/02/2017 à 16:52, David Ahern a écrit : >>>> On 2/23/17 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: >>>>> This really need to be a fundamental facility, so that it transparently >>>>> works for NetworkManager, router daemons, everything. Not just iproute2 >>>>> and "ls". >>>> >>>> I'll rebase my patch and send out as RFC. >>>> >>> David, did you finally send those patches? >>> >> >> No, but for a few reasons. >> >> It is easy to hide devices in a dump: >> >> https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/48a80a00eac284e58bae04af10a5a932dd7aee00 >> >> >> But I think those devices should also not exist in sysfs or procfs which >> overlaps what I would like to see for lightweight netdevices: >> >> https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/70574be699cf252e77f71e3df11192438689f976 > > Interesting that does indeed solve the same problems as the L2 only > patch set intended. I am not exactly sure if hiding the devices from > procfs/sysfs would be appropriate in my case (dumb L2 only switch that > only does 802.1q for instance), but why not. > > >> >> >> and to be complete, hidden devices should not be allowed to have a >> network address or transmit packets which is the L2 only intent from >> Florian: >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg340808.html >> > > Do you plan on submitting the LWT patch set at some point? Definitely. Maybe I can find some time this weekend.