Re: [PATCH] Make ifcfg-eth* NM_CONTROLLED=no work without HWADDR by matching on device name

Dan Williams a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 18:53 +0100, Marc Herbert wrote:

> If you're just going to have udev map HWADDR -> iface, and then NM
> depends on iface, why not just have NM use the HWADDR and avoid the
> indirection?

Because anyone else but NM still depends on this correct and stable
HWADDR->eth1 mapping performed by udev. Exemple: the old ifcfg-eth1
system entirely relies on it, as the filename shows.

> NM doesn't *duplicate* the HWADDR
> mappings, because that's simply not how things work.  

If you must have the same HWADDR->eth1 mapping configured in both
ifcfg-eth1 and udev, then it is duplicated. This is just fact.

I think one issue here is that, despite all your efforts, NM still
indirectly relies on the device name, since "NM_CONTROLLED=no" is read
in a file unfortunately named "ifcfg-eth1".

So if instead you make NM read the "NM_CONTROLLED=no" flag in some other
"/etc/NetworkManager/HWADDR" configuration item (NOT referencing the
device name in anyway), then the duplicate mapping problem goes
away. This would make NetworkManager really ethX-agnostic, isolated
from this major ifcfg design flaw (duplicating udev).

> But the difference here is that the device name is irrelevant in the
> end, because both NM and udev are using the same base data: the
> unique MAC address of the card.

The device name is relevant to every network configuration file, tool
or script ever written (except NM?). It is also what every system
administrator is used to deal with. I understand that NetworkManager
laudable goal is to get rid of all of these, making the "eth1" device
name truly irrelevant, but this it not going to happen overnight.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]