On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:04 PM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/3/18 9:42 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> >>> There are other use cases that want to hide a device from userspace. I >> >> What usecases do you have in mind? > > As mentioned in a previous response some kernel drivers create control > netdevs. Just as in this case users should not be mucking with it, and > S/W like lldpd should ignore it. > >> >>> would prefer a better solution than playing games with name prefixes and >>> one that includes an API for users to list all devices -- even ones >>> hidden by default. >> >> Netdevice hiding feels a bit scarry for me. This smells like a workaround >> for userspace issues. Why can't the netdevice be visible always and >> userspace would know what is it and what should it do with it? >> >> Once we start with hiding, there are other things related to that which >> appear. Like who can see what, levels of visibility etc... >> > > I would not advocate for any API that does not allow users to have full > introspection. The intent is to hide the netdev by default but have an > option to see it.
I'm fine with having a link dump API to inspect the hidden netdev. As said, the name for hidden netdevs should be in a separate device namespace, and we did not even get closer to what it should look like as I don't want to make it just an option for ip link. Perhaps a new set of sub-commands of, say, 'ip device'. -Siwei _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization