Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-11 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
Stephen Hemminger writes: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:55:01 -0600 > David Ahern wrote: > >> On 8/10/17 10:48 AM, David Miller wrote: >> > From: Andrew Lunn >> > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:27:22 +0200 >> > >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:55:01 -0600 David Ahern wrote: > On 8/10/17 10:48 AM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Andrew Lunn > > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:27:22 +0200 > > > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >>> Andrew Lunn

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread David Ahern
On 8/10/17 10:48 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Lunn > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:27:22 +0200 > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>> Andrew Lunn writes: >>> > We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however,

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread David Miller
From: Andrew Lunn Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:27:22 +0200 > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Andrew Lunn writes: >> >> >> We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however, don't have a >> >> special IFLA_EVENT_* for name

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
Andrew Lunn writes: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Andrew Lunn writes: >> >> >> We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however, don't have a >> >> special IFLA_EVENT_* for name change and end up with IFLA_EVENT_NONE.

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Andrew Lunn
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 05:24:55PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Andrew Lunn writes: > > >> We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however, don't have a > >> special IFLA_EVENT_* for name change and end up with IFLA_EVENT_NONE. > > > > What is in this event? Old and new

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
Andrew Lunn writes: >> We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however, don't have a >> special IFLA_EVENT_* for name change and end up with IFLA_EVENT_NONE. > > What is in this event? Old and new name? Just the new name? Basically, it's everything we know about the

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Andrew Lunn
> We are - rtnetlink_event() does the job. We, however, don't have a > special IFLA_EVENT_* for name change and end up with IFLA_EVENT_NONE. What is in this event? Old and new name? Just the new name? Andrew

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Andrew Lunn
> >> 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 > >

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
Eric Dumazet writes: > On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Andrew Lunn writes: >> >> >> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to >> >> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular,

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Andrew Lunn 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

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-10 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
Andrew Lunn 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

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-09 Thread Andrew Lunn
> 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

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-09 Thread Vitaly Kuznetsov
吉藤英明 writes: > 2017-08-09 19:42 GMT+09:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov : >> What happens is: __netvsc_vf_setup() does dev_open() for the VF device and >> the consecutive dev_change_name() fails with -EBUSY because of the >> (dev->flags & IFF_UP)

Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: Allow name change of IFF_UP interfaces

2017-08-09 Thread 吉藤英明
2017-08-09 19:42 GMT+09:00 Vitaly Kuznetsov : > What happens is: __netvsc_vf_setup() does dev_open() for the VF device and > the consecutive dev_change_name() fails with -EBUSY because of the > (dev->flags & IFF_UP) check. The history of this code predates git so I > wasn't