Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes: >> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to >> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't >> happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request >> the change. >> >> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by >> the change? > > How about: > > man 8 dhclient-script > > The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get > the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if > they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down during the run or do some other configuration, right? Running multiple configuration tools at the same moment is a bad idea, you never know what you're gonna end up with. As I see it, checks in kernel we have are meant to protect kernel itself, not to disallow all user<->kernel interactions leading to imperfect result. (AFAIU) If we remove the check nothing is going to change: udev will still be renaming interfaces before bringing them up. In netvsc case users are not supposed to configure the VF interface at all, it just becomes a slave of netvsc interface. -- Vitaly
