22.06.2012 14:37, Devin Teske пишет: >> 5. Same for vlan16. For vlan9 is shows right 'IEEE 802.1Q VLAN network >> interface'. >> It should work same way for vlan1-vlan4095 interfaces at least. >> > > I'd like to know if the sysctl MIB's for describing network interfaces is > reliable. Maybe I'll keep the static list as a fallback. But yes, you're > absolutely right -- I should have supported up to 5 digits even (ifconfig has > internal limits of 16-bit unsigned integer for the interface instance-number). > > >> 6. Same for ipfw0 pseudo-interface. >> > > Curious what sysctl says about it.
I do not know what sysctl subtree do you refer to. >> 7. Networking Devices configuration does not allow to configure any interface >> while there are mounted NFS volumes. Should present a warning only, not >> disallow the operation. > > Did I completely disallow it? Yes. > I'll have to re-check -- I thought that I had made it so that you could > view/edit the configuration but that the warning says that changes will not > become effective until you either reboot or visit the menu again when no NFS > mounts are active. > > >> For example, it should be possible to configure new vlan interface while NFS >> mount >> uses another clan. >> > > Do you know of a handy way of determining which NFS mount is using which > network interface? And further, is there a handy way of traversing the route > path to determine that one interface isn't required as an intermediary > transit device? (meaning: can one truly ever know that making a new > configuration active on any interface could not potentially drop your entire > machine from the net with hung NFS mounts?) > > Many months of testing in the lab produced no less than 6 edge-cases where -- > if a network link or route is modified when NFS mounts are active -- the > machine can enter an unstable/unusable state. > > So we decided to err on the side of caution when it came to allowing settings > to be made-active when NFS mounts are active. > > I'm not against improving the code, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be safer > to stick to disallowing any/all changes from being made-active (while > allowing viewing/editing without making-active) when NFS mounts are active. > > NOTE: There are other safe-guards too. For example, if you're logged in via > SSH and using X11 forwarding while passing the "-X" flag (to use Xdialog(1)), > you are disallowed from making a new hostname active (you can change the > hostname, but not make it active) because that would cause the very next > iteration of Xdialog(1) to fail due to a surreptitious X authority revocation > based on the hostname-change in mid-session. I'm sure that bsdconfig should emit warnings only but not disallow root to make any needed changes. NFS may use completly unrelated routes/interfaces, X11 may be user over network without ssh -X etc. It's pretty annoying for administrator to fight with tools thinking they know better what root should do. >> 8. In DNS Nameserver Configuration, it's not clear that one, in fact, >> can remove unneeded DNS server through two-step procedure - first try to >> edit, >> then clear the address. It should be more obvious at first. >> > > Can you have a look at "bsdconfig startup_rcconf" and see if that's a better > way to go about the deletion-process? > > Or perhaps you're just advocating a helpful message in the text above the > menu list that explains how to delete the item? (least amount of work) Again, just a message. Eugene Grosbein _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
