[netcf-devel] Undefining a bridge does not recreate the original interface

Laine Stump laine at laine.org
Thu Oct 29 04:13:53 UTC 2009


On 10/28/2009 04:23 PM, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 02:54:19PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
>    
>> On 10/28/2009 02:30 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>      
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:51:28PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Playing with netcf a bit, I'm hitting an issue with undefining a bridge:
>>>> the original interface disappears from the ncftool --list output, and
>>>> its ifcfg script is completely gone.
>>>>
>>>> $ sudo cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-wlan0
>>>> # Networking Interface
>>>> DEVICE=wlan0
>>>> HWADDR=00:1C:BF:04:29:A4
>>>> ONBOOT=no
>>>> TYPE=wireless
>>>>
>>>> $ cat netcfbridge.xml
>>>> <interface type="bridge" name="testbr0">
>>>>     <start mode="none"/>
>>>>     <mtu size="1500"/>
>>>>     <protocol family="ipv4">
>>>>       <dhcp/>
>>>>     </protocol>
>>>>     <bridge stp="off" delay="0.01">
>>>>       <interface type="ethernet" name="wlan0">
>>>>         <mac address="00:1C:BF:04:29:A4"/>
>>>>       </interface>
>>>>     </bridge>
>>>> </interface>
>>>>
>>>> $ sudo src/ncftool
>>>> ncftool>   list --all
>>>> eth0
>>>> lo
>>>> wlan0
>>>>
>>>> ncftool>   define netcfbridge.xml
>>>> Defined interface testbr0
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I'd argue that this should have in fact failed, because the
>>> consituent interface in the bridge definition was already a
>>> defined primary interface.
>>>
>>>        
>>
>> Yes, I agree with this. That way nobody would be able to accidentally
>> define over the top of a config without at least acknowledging they were
>> losing the original information.
>>
>>
>>      
>>> I think netcf should have required the caller to explictly
>>> undefine wlan0 here first, rather than secretly undefining
>>> it as a side-effect of defining testbr0.
>>>
>>> This would then obviously mean that when later undefining
>>> testbr0, there would be no question of re-defining wlan0
>>>
>>>        
> Yes, doing it this way would bring us back to the principle of least
> surprise. Laine, would this be difficult?
>    

On this topic, I am from Barcelona (I know nothing).



More information about the netcf-devel mailing list