On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:36:20 +0100 Thomas Haller <thaller redhat com> wrote:
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 18:32 -0600, Robby Workman wrote:However, if I tell nm-applet to Disconnect it, it does so. My understanding is that setting it as unmanaged would remove the possibility to do this, which is exactly what I want. I can of course work around this by setting it as unmanaged in the NetworkManager.conf, and I'm not opposed to doing that, but it seems that this is a bug.On 1.0 branch (which you are testing) this works as follows: (1) configuring a device as unmanaged via UDev rule sets the device as "default-unmanaged". (2) configuring it as unmanaged via "keyfile.unmanaged-devices" in NetworkManager.conf configures the device as "user-unmanaged". For (2), a "user-unmanaged" device cannot be activated later on. It was configured as unmanaged, you cannot activate it. For (1), a "default-unmanaged" device still allows you to activate the device if you do an active user-action (like clicking on nm-applet). On master/1.2, also "user-unmanaged" will behave like "default- unmanaged". Thus, you will be able to overwrite a user-configuration (from files or UDev) via a user-action from D-Bus (e.g. when clicking on nm-applet). Does that make sense?
Indeed it does. That's not as intuitive as I'd like, but if that's the designed behavior, then what I'm experiencing is not a bug.
As to why nm-applet behaves differently on whether to show you the device for (1) or (2), I don't know.
If "default-unmanaged" still allows NM to manipulate the interface via user action, then I think it makes sense to show the interface in the applet.
It certainly should not and I don't think that nm-applet is even aware whether a device is unmanged via (1) or (2). The difference is mainly about whether you are able to still activate the device.
For the sake of clarity, both for me and perhaps others, the 1.0.x behavior is as follows: default-unmanaged is set by e.g. udev rules, and essentially tells NM to leave the interface alone at NM startup, i.e. don't try to configure it or manipulate any existing configuration. However, if the user explicitly requests NM to manipulate the interface, then this is permissible. user-unmanaged is set in NetworkManager.conf and essentially tells NM to disallow *any* configuration/manipulation of the interface. Is that correct? On a related note, if the 1.2.x branch makes user-unmanaged behave the same as default-unmanaged (which I think is a good change from a "be more consistent with what unmanaged means" point of view), then what are the chances of implementing a new keyfile option to hide interfaces from the applet? I find myself accidentally clicking on the virbr0 interface occasionally (my bluetooth mouse is a bit unpredictable with clicks sometimes), so I like to hide that interface completely - there's absolutely no reason (for me, at least) to have NM even care that the interface exists. -RW
Attachment:
pgp3jMGI1ocwu.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature