From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14FE1FF17C for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:04:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B9B4316C49; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:06:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hanreich Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:02:31 +0200 Message-ID: <175328294843.3720382.10504362558256531970.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.2 In-Reply-To: <20250723142106.235104-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20250723142106.235104-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753283162215 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH pve-common 1/1] inotify/interfaces: use 'ip link' instead of /proc/net/dev X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:21:06 +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > The function reading /etc/network/interfaces used /proc/net/dev to > determine pre-existing physical interfaces. Since the introduction of > altnames, /proc/net/dev returns insufficient information for > determining if an interface is already contained in /e/n/i, since it > does not include altnames. > > The interfaces parser added all interfaces from /proc/net/dev as > configurable network devices. If altnames were used in the > configuration, then the same interface would be listed twice: once > with its 'real' name (from /proc/net/dev) and once with its altname > (from the interfaces file). > > [...] I tested this one some configurations where /e/n/i used different names compared to the "primary" interface name the kernels uses, made it work fine now. Implementation wise it looks relative straight forward. I do not recall for sure anymore, but do differing bridge-ports work transparently with the ifupdown2 changes from Christoph. With that it might be nice to support it here too in the midterm, but that is certainly not a blocker for now. Applied with perltidy formatting changes squashed in, thanks! [1/1] inotify/interfaces: use 'ip link' instead of /proc/net/dev commit: 346ff9744b036c529373cab5b503eaaf37a5bf03 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel