They pushed a change to initscripts and systemd that should fix the issue:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-1590/initscripts-9.42.2-1.fc18,systemd-197-1.fc18.2

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Bailey" <bai...@cs.kent.edu>
> To: users@ovirt.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:26:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Users] vlan interface failed : Bridged network Internet is 
> attached to multiple interfaces: <UNKNOWN>
> on Host node1.
> 
> 
> On 2/20/2013 4:56 AM, Antoni Segura Puimedon wrote:
> > There's a systemd hackfest this week on occasion of the developers
> > conference in Brno. I'll try to see what can be done about this.
> >
> > @Kevin. Did you try the 60-net.rules that Lukas Nykryn proposed?
> > ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="net", ATTRS{type}=="1",
> > PROGRAM="/lib/udev/rename_device", RESULT=="?*", NAME="$result"
> 
> I had tried this and it didn't help.  It seems that the vlan
> interface
> has type 1 (/sys/class/net/em1_1.538/type contains 1) and the rename
> still happens.
> 
> > Best,
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jeff Bailey" <bai...@cs.kent.edu>
> >> To: users@ovirt.org
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:38:28 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Users] vlan interface failed : Bridged network
> >> Internet is attached to multiple interfaces: <UNKNOWN>
> >> on Host node1.
> >>
> >> On 2/19/2013 8:04 PM, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> >>> On 2/19/2013 5:34 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:12:42PM +0100, Kevin Maziere Aubry
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've just found a workaround ... rm
> >>>>> /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/60-net.rules and
> >>>>> reboot
> >>>>> Then I can add vlan to physical interface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2013/2/19 Kevin Maziere Aubry <kevin.mazi...@alterway.fr>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Today on IRC we worked on this issue and I will try to
> >>>>>> summarized the
> >>>>>> results of our troubleshooting :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current stable systemd rpm has a bug with device mapper which
> >>>>>> cause
> >>>>>> all
> >>>>>> device created on a fibrechannel to have wrong access right.
> >>>>>> So the workaround is to replace systemd with the one on the
> >>>>>> testing
> >>>>>> repo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But the testing release as also a bug with udev which rename
> >>>>>> network
> >>>>>> interface so that each new network interface is named
> >>>>>> renameX@interface.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We test some udev workaround unsucessfully. (
> >>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907365 )
> >>>>>> Now I think a patch on systemd testing rpm should fix the
> >>>>>> issue,
> >>>>>> waiting
> >>>>>> for it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reference:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912323
> >>>> Last word that I've heard about this bug ^^^ ("Bug 912323 -
> >>>> Adding
> >>>> a
> >>>> VLAN Device does not Work ") is that Muli can no longer
> >>>> reproduce
> >>>> it on
> >>>> his host.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this does reproduce on your system, would you provide more
> >>>> data
> >>>> as
> >>>> requested on
> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912323#c2
> >>>> ?
> >>>> Note that I've just called the systemd cavalry to our
> >>>> assistance.
> >>> I thought I had a simple (if inconvenient) work around but it
> >>> looks
> >>> like something (either the deploy or syncing the management
> >>> network)
> >>> puts the HWADDR line back in ifcfg-em1_1.  I'm going to do some
> >>> more
> >>> testing...  Yep, it's the network sync that adds HWADDR back
> >>> which
> >>> then triggers udev to rename em1_1.538 to em1_1 which doesn't
> >>> work
> >>> and
> >>> I end up with "rename??@em1_1".  I can live without the sync I
> >>> suppose.  I'll try leaving the manual config of the management
> >>> network
> >>> alone and then config the other networks and see what happens.
> >>>
> >> Well, that didn't work.  I can't seem to find any combination that
> >> plays
> >> nicely together.  Looks like Kevin's solution of ripping out
> >> udev's
> >> ability to rename interfaces may be the only quick fix.  It does
> >> get
> >> us
> >> the ability to change ownership of LVs back which is more
> >> important.
> >>  So
> >> far, I've seen no ill effects and everything (networking and
> >> storage)
> >> seems to be working as it should.
> >>
> >>>> Dan.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Users mailing list
> >>>> Users@ovirt.org
> >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Users mailing list
> >>> Users@ovirt.org
> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Users mailing list
> >> Users@ovirt.org
> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Users@ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to