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 C495E1FF141 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 12:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 46B1D3584; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 12:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 12:22:06 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH pve-container] fix #7571: emit mtu in ifupdown-based LXC guests To: Ilan Karasik , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260506230002.36906-1-ilankarasik@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20260506230002.36906-1-ilankarasik@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1781605179.y4iy928e70.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781605273993 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: PAQOFMNWIHCDOEXL2GSU3FWYOMEBE2OE X-Message-ID-Hash: PAQOFMNWIHCDOEXL2GSU3FWYOMEBE2OE X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi! please see https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation#Software_Li= cense_and_Copyright for our CLA requirements, and send a signed copy as instructed there. On May 7, 2026 1:00 am, Ilan Karasik wrote: > From: iamkarasik please add a short description of the commit/patch here, see our developer documentation for details: > Do not put in a literal description of the code diff, especially not > for simpler changes. The commit message should not focus on the > detailed what's done/changed but rather answer: > > Why this was done otherwise previously (or why this was missing > until now). > > Why the new approach is better or necessary (e.g., a > bug was found, requirements changed, a prerequisite was merged that > enables this). > > What the resulting effect is for users or developers > (if not already obvious from the subject line). If there should be > no visible/semantic change then explicitly stating so can also be > good for non-trivial changes. Thanks! >=20 > Signed-off-by: iamkarasik > --- > src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Debian.pm | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Debian.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Debian.pm > index 837397b..bbf73d5 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Debian.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Debian.pm > @@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ sub setup_network { > $net->{needsroute6} =3D 1; > } > } > + $net->{mtu} =3D $d->{mtu} if defined($d->{mtu}); > $networks->{ $d->{name} } =3D $net if keys %$net; > } > } > @@ -337,6 +338,7 @@ sub setup_network { > $interfaces .=3D "\tgateway $gw\n"; > } > } > + $interfaces .=3D "\tmtu $net->{mtu}\n" if defined($net->= {mtu}); > foreach my $attr (@{ $section->{attr} }) { > $interfaces .=3D "\t$attr\n"; > } > @@ -450,6 +452,7 @@ sub setup_network { > || $aname eq 'netmask' > || $aname eq 'gateway' > || $aname eq 'broadcast' > + || $aname eq 'mtu' > ) { > # skip > } else { > --=20 > 2.51.2 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20