Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:44:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 278338] bhyve deletes tap LINK0 flag (regression) Message-ID: <bug-278338-27103-VPNjYzLiz5@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-278338-27103@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-278338-27103@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D278338 crest@rlwinm.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |crest@rlwinm.de --- Comment #1 from crest@rlwinm.de --- It's expected that a tap interface goes down if you close it causing the addresses and routes to removed. It's annoying for a routed bhyve setup, but can be avoided by using the vmnet cloner instead of the tap cloner to create your interfaces. You should be able to get the behaviour I assume you want for a routed bhyve deployment from vmnet. I'm not sure what's the correct way to deal with the link0 flag if the tap interface is already configured before bhyve opens it= . I can see arguments both way (trusting the user to really know and intentiona= lly set each bitfield they twiddled with vs. bringing the device into its defau= lt configuration to clean up any corrupted state left over from the previous opening of the device by some other software that also used tap0). The only= way to cover both cases would probably to add one more configuration option sim= ilar to noinit for serial ports. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-278338-27103-VPNjYzLiz5>