From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 24 15:59:04 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9BF1065690 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (ns1.bitblocks.com [64.142.15.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4468FC1A for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost.bitblocks.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9675B30; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) To: martinko In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:34:39 +0200." References: <200908232215.n7NMFqkK007704@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <20090823233419.790325B2E@mail.bitblocks.com> Comments: In-reply-to martinko message dated "Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:34:39 +0200." Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:59:01 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Message-Id: <20090824155902.0C9675B30@mail.bitblocks.com> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Automagic bridged networking with QEMU (tap) X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:04 -0000 On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:34:39 +0200 martinko wrote: > > I was thinking of using autobridge but eventually decided not to because: > - Putting an interface into bridge has certain drawbacks like disabling > checksum offloading. So I'd prefer not to bridge until I have to. > - I'm not sure whether it's generally acceptable to autobridge all tap* > devices. I might be OK with it now but I may not in the future and/or > other users may have different uses of tap* devices. > > Problem with your devfs.conf is that it's static and thus the solution > is sort of halfway between not using autobridging at all (precreating a > few tap? devices and bridging them in rc.conf, like I found in many > examples on the internet). Again, it may be OK for you and me but I was > trying to find a more general solution. There is no one solution that works for all. In any case we have to touch too many files and things like devfs.conf and devfs.rules are confusing so what would be most useful is a "wizard" script that asks some questions and modifies appropriate files to configure qemu. > Also, I'm not sure how is it possible that it works for you at all. I > tried "perm tap* 0660" but it did not work and then I learned > devfs.conf is only good for interfaces available at boot. It works fine for me. I think you have to use specific tap devices and not tap*. If you want the same behavior for additional tap devices created at run time, devfs.conf won't do.