From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 20:39:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20190221203808-mutt-send-email-mst__24876.9294865028$1550799776$gmane$org@kernel.org> References: <1523386790-12396-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1523386790-12396-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180410142608.50f15b45@xeon-e3> <20180411075334.GK2028@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Siwei Liu Cc: Alexander Duyck , virtio-dev , Jiri Pirko , Jakub Kicinski , Sridhar Samudrala , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, liran.alon@oracle.com, Netdev , si-wei liu , David Miller List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: > Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining > issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed > cleanly, see: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268 > > The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was > not specifically writtten for such kernel automatic enslavement. > Specifically, if it is a bond or team, the slave would typically get > renamed *before* virtual device gets created, that's what udev can > control (without getting netdev opened early by the other part of > kernel) and other userspace components for e.g. initramfs, > init-scripts can coordinate well in between. The in-kernel > auto-enslavement of net_failover breaks this userspace convention, > which don't provides a solution if user care about consistent naming > on the slave netdevs specifically. > > Previously this issue had been specifically called out when IFF_HIDDEN > and the 1-netdev was proposed, but no one gives out a solution to this > problem ever since. Please share your mind how to proceed and solve > this userspace issue if netdev does not welcome a 1-netdev model. Above says: there's no motivation in the systemd/udevd community at this point to refactor the rename logic and make it work well with 3-netdev. What would the fix be? Skip slave devices? -- MST