* Jason A. Donenfeld > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:04 PM Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Absolutely, a 'wg syncconf' wrapper is unable to fully implement every > > conceivable change to the wg-quick config file. That said, 99.9% of my > > configuration changes are additions/removal of [Peer] sections that 'wg > > syncconf' do handle perfectly. Being able to add and remove individual > > VPN users without disrupting the traffic of other unrelated users is a > > really big win for me. I would imagine this to ability be highly > > desirable for most other VPN server operators as well – even for those > > that do not use systemd. > > But for people shell scripting, can't they just use `wg syncconf > wgnet0 <(wg-quick strip wgnet0)`, so that it's explicit what's > happening?
Of course they can, just as they can opt to not use wg-quick at all. However, it would be better, in my opinion, if every user do not have to re-invent the wheel in order to accomplish common tasks, which (I assume) is the reason why wg-quick – «an extremely simple script for easily bringing up a WireGuard interface, suitable for a few common use cases», to quote its manual page – exists in the first place. > I'm still pretty hesitant for the reasons I outlined in the previous > email. If anything, it'd probably have to be "syncpeers", but even > then, it wouldn't update the routing information that wg-quick(8) > sometimes does. Fair enough. If you do not want it in wg-quick, I won't insist. > The right thing to do for a `wg-quick reload` command > would be to take into account all of the various other changes, and > mutate them the minimal distance to reflect the updated config file. > But this sounds pretty hard to do in bash. And that makes me worry > about overall mission creep in wg-quick(8). syncconf in wg(8) is > fairly simple, though still a bit verbose, but that's in C: > https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-tools/tree/src/setconf.c#n30 . And > there's a very clear way of doing this, whereas there are lots of > weird edge cases when handling routing. Agreed, this sounds very complex and not worth the trouble. That said, I do believe that most admins would not be bothered by the fact that some changes would require a restart (i.e., an wg-quick up/down cycle). This limitation is common in other pieces of software too, e.g., one can normally not use 'apachectl graceful' to make Apache listen on a new port below 1024. However, in spite of it not being perfect, 'apachectl graceful' remains extremely useful. > Plus, how hard is it to add `wg syncconf wgnet0 <(wg-quick strip > wgnet0)` to scripts? Not hard - it is precisely what my patch did, after all. Tore
