From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234F96EAC3 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:55:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 11273EBC9 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:54:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 40E15EBBF for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:54:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7282543873 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:46:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1f540c95-6922-8dee-7143-92ce692caa19@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:46:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , alexandre derumier , pve-devel References: <5f2911bdc581cd9ff71eb935d5b83fb4847036c8.camel@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <5f2911bdc581cd9ff71eb935d5b83fb4847036c8.camel@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.007 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.305 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] debian11 ifslave bonding bug (with ifupdown1) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:55:13 -0000 Hi, On 25/08/2021 07:55, alexandre derumier wrote: > multiple users have reported problems if ifenslave (ifupdown1), > (maintly upgrade from proxmox6 without switch to ifupdown2) FWIW, I thought about adding a note to the pve6to7 upgrade checker script to recommend switching to ifupdown2, IMO most probably would fare better with that, more features (e.g., live reload) and more and more of our setups run it too, so it gets good testing too. > > when physical interfaces have "auto .." > > auto eth0 > iface eth0 >  ... > auto eth1 > iface eth1 > .... > > auto bond0 > iface bond0 > bond-slaves eth0 eth1 > > > it seem to come from a bug in ifenslave pre-up script > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=968368 > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990428 > > patch here: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=968368;filename=ifenslave-args.diff;msg=5 > did you by chance verify that patch already? > Maybe it could be great to add a note in the upgrade procedure about > this until it's fixed. (or maybe provide a fixed proxmox ifenslave > package) IMO it's always better to ship a fixed package if possible, upgrade notes tend to get missed by a not negligible percentage of users. cheers, Thomas