On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes: > > >> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to > >> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't > >> happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request > >> the change. > >> > >> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by > >> the change? > > > > How about: > > > > man 8 dhclient-script > > > > The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get > > the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if > > they are given the old name, which no longer exists. > > Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is > running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down > during the run or do some other configuration, right? Running multiple > configuration tools at the same moment is a bad idea, you never know > what you're gonna end up with. > > As I see it, checks in kernel we have are meant to protect kernel > itself, not to disallow all user<->kernel interactions leading to > imperfect result. > > (AFAIU) If we remove the check nothing is going to change: udev will > still be renaming interfaces before bringing them up. In netvsc case > users are not supposed to configure the VF interface at all, it just > becomes a slave of netvsc interface.
Are we sending an event if device name is changed ? If yes, your patch is fine. If not, daemons would not be aware the need to refresh their view of the world.
