Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 23:26:19 +0200 From: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> To: Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, ivy@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: <6e33a247-4b2a-4f7c-8e1f-14a549db27cd@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> In-Reply-To: <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org> References: <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com> <20250515185919.87008219@slippy.cwsent.com> <45d0f49d-229b-46b4-af95-6e8c4c856661@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
W dniu 16.05.2025 o 22:38, Kristof Provost pisze: > On 15 May 2025, at 21:32, Marek Zarychta wrote: >> W dniu 15.05.2025 o 20:59, Cy Schubert pisze: >>> In message <20250515162552.9209B20E@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert writes: >>>> Over the last couple of days epair(4) fails to set up when an IP address is >>>> specified. >>>> >>>> bob# service jail onestart test2 >>>> Starting jails: cannot start jail "test2": >>>> epair0a >>>> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Invalid argument >>>> jail: test2: /sbin/ifconfig epair0a inet 10.1.1.70 netmask 0xffffff00 up: >>>> failed >>>> . >>>> bob# ifconfig epair0a inet 10.1.1.70 netmask 0xffffff00 >>>> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): Invalid argument >>>> bob# ifconfig epair0a inet up >>>> bob# >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> This regression is caused by b61850c4e6f6. >>> >>> >> Yes, it requires at least head up, similar to old one, known from fibs : >> >> WARNING: Configuring address on bridge(4) member has been turned off by default. Consider tuning net.link.bridge.member_ifaddrs if needed. >> > The error message should not suggest changing the sysctl. This is a configuration error and will lead to subtle and unexpected problems. > > The intent is for the sysctl to go away and for this to be entirely disallowed, without a way to bypass the check in 16.0. > > As Lexi pointed out in another e-mail: users should assign addresses to the bridge, never to bridge member interfaces. > > — > Kristof > Thanks for the statement. Some may consider this a POLA violation. If you insist on removing the sysctl, it will require additional work to update all existing vm-bhyve and jail setups before upgrading to 16.0-RELEASE, whenever it is released. Cheers -- Marekhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6e33a247-4b2a-4f7c-8e1f-14a549db27cd>