Re: Unmanaged device still showin in nm-applet UI

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
is that setting it as unmanaged would remove the possibility to do
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

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.


Attachment: pgp3jMGI1ocwu.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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