On 4/4/18 1:36 AM, Siwei Liu wrote: > 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'.
It is a netdev so there is no reason to have a separate ip command to inspect it. 'ip link' is the right place.
