Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-06 Thread Cong Wang
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote: > > Now that you have made me aware of some use cases that do want the > loopback device to be DOWN, could we use a global sysctl to dictate > the loopback behavior during init? e.g. Yeah, it is never about which way is better,

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-06 Thread महेश बंडेवार
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)" writes: > >>> I wonder if it is too late to change this since this behavior is probably >>> from the beginning of network namespace. A networkless netns is also >>> useful at least for testing purpose, we

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-06 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)" writes: >> I wonder if it is too late to change this since this behavior is probably >> from the beginning of network namespace. A networkless netns is also >> useful at least for testing purpose, we do use it as a sandbox. >> > Sandbox is my use case too but i'm

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread महेश बंडेवार
> I wonder if it is too late to change this since this behavior is probably > from the beginning of network namespace. A networkless netns is also > useful at least for testing purpose, we do use it as a sandbox. > Sandbox is my use case too but i'm worried about all other things that a process ins

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread महेश बंडेवार
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:59:37 -0700 > >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:20 AM, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mahesh Bandewar >>> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:16:15 -0700 >>> In almost every scenario the lo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread Cong Wang
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote: > Systems have only one lo device (since ages) and that is usually taken > care at the boot time. Now with the namespaces it's not just one > device as it's per namespace and though not much this patch will > benefit a little. P

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread David Miller
From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:59:37 -0700 > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:20 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mahesh Bandewar >> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:16:15 -0700 >> >>> In almost every scenario the loopback device is brought UP after >>> initialization. So there

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread महेश बंडेवार
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:20 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Mahesh Bandewar > Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:16:15 -0700 > >> In almost every scenario the loopback device is brought UP after >> initialization. So there is no point of bringing up the device in >> DOWN state followed by device UP operat

Re: [PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-05 Thread David Miller
From: Mahesh Bandewar Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:16:15 -0700 > In almost every scenario the loopback device is brought UP after > initialization. So there is no point of bringing up the device in > DOWN state followed by device UP operation. This change exposed > another issue of fib-trie initiali

[PATCH 0/2] bring UP loopback device at initialziation

2017-07-04 Thread Mahesh Bandewar
From: Mahesh Bandewar In almost every scenario the loopback device is brought UP after initialization. So there is no point of bringing up the device in DOWN state followed by device UP operation. This change exposed another issue of fib-trie initialization which is corrected in the first path.