On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:56 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> No, because 127.x.x.x is by default part of the exclude, so it will never get 
> into the modex. The problem today, is that even if you manually remove it 
> from the exclude and add it to the include, it will not work, because of the 
> hardcoded checks. Once we remove those checks, things will work the way we 
> expect, interfaces are removed because they don't match the provided 
> addresses.


> I would have agreed with you if the current code was doing a better decision 
> of what is local and what not. But it is not, it simply remove all 127.x.x.x 
> interfaces (opal/util/net.c:222). Thus, the only thing the current code does, 
> is preventing a power-user from using the loopback (despite being explicitly 
> enabled via the corresponding MCA parameters).

Fair enough.

Should we have a keyword that can be used in the btl_tcp_if_include/exclude 
(e.g., "local") that removes all local-only interfaces?  I.E., all 127.x.x.x/8 
interfaces *and* all local-only interfaces (e.g., bridging interfaces to local 
VMs and the like)?

We could then replace the default "" value in btl_tcp_if_exclude 
with this token, and therefore actually exclude the VM-only interfaces (which 
have caused some users problems in the past).

Jeff Squyres
For corporate legal information go to: 

devel mailing list

Reply via email to