Peter Memishian wrote: > I stumbled on an edge case with my IPMP bits where the following (garbage) > config would introduce a panic: > > # ifconfig ce0 plumb > # ifconfig ce0 inet6 ipmp > > The problem is that IP simply assumes that both ill "halves" must refer to > the same phyint. Above, the IPv4 half is a DL_ETHER link, and the IPv6 > half is a SUNW_DL_IPMP pseudo-link, which quickly induce a panic. While > I've fixed IP to catch this case in my workspace, I think the same problem > may show up in the vanity naming bits. For instance, what happens in the > following case? > > # ifconfig vni0 inet6 plumb > # dladm rename-link ce0 vni0 > # ifconfig vni0 plumb >
[With your fix in IP, the second ifconfig should just fail, is that right?] First, even the second ifconfig does not cause panic, it will result in a strange situation, that the inet6 part of vni0 is a pseudo IP interface, and the inet4 part of vni0 corresponds to a physical link. Therefore, one would argue that the rename operation should just fail, as there is already interface named vni0. I think we discussed about this and concluded that it is just wrong to validate the link names, and exclude those well established IP interface name prefixes, even that some careless configuration will result in confusion.
