Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 18:45:16 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 273557] Regression preventing bhyve from running inside a jail without IP after f74147e26999838e03a522bf59ea33bef470d356) breaks support for jailing bhyve with IPv4 and IPv6 disabled. Patch included. Message-ID: <bug-273557-27103-kIBwn2oH8H@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-273557-27103@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-273557-27103@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=3D273557 Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |markj@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #12 from Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org> --- I think I agree with the proposed patch to use VMIO_SIOCSIFFLAGS. Even if = IP is disabled on the jail, tap is an L2 device. The fact that we have to use= an IP socket to configure the interface is bizarre; this overloading of socket= s is also problematic for capsicum. OTOH, I think we can configure IFF_UP with any kind of socket, no? We could use a PF_ROUTE or PF_NETLINK socket instead. I don't think netlink itself = buys us anything here, ifconfig still uses socket ioctls to set interface flags.= =20 One other reason to avoid VMIO_SIOCSIFFLAGS is that it's really just there = for vmnet(4) compatibility, I believe. --=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-273557-27103-kIBwn2oH8H>