Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:40:19 GMT From: bw@desync.com To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/88119: [patch] partial matching for ifconfig Message-ID: <200510282340.j9SNeJp5015039@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/88119; it has been noted by GNATS. From: bw@desync.com To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/88119: [patch] partial matching for ifconfig Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:26:58 -0400 On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 03:32:02PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > The manpage entry is problematic in that "match" is poorly defined. I have changed the wording slightly. "Matching multiple interfaces" lends itself to a format such as "ifconfig if0,if1 up", in my opinion. > Also, "if (ifindex == 0)" should probably be "if (ifindex == 0 && argc > == 0)" so the result of "ifconfig l <stuff>" isn't: > > lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 > inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 > inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 I guess you're right; that could be confusing. > Thinking about it more I find this to be a significant POLA violation. > It means you can no longer reliably test for interface existence with: > > if ifconfig $ifn > /dev/null 2>&1; then > ... True, fixed. > As such I believe a new flag is required. If you used strstr to > implement grep-like semantics, -g would be appropriate. I'm not sure > what flag would be best for prefix matching. IMO, -e with egrep regexps > would be best. Ideally, -l would be enhanced to support this filtering > as well. -l is for use in scripts. I see no benefit to partial matching in such a case. http://desync.com/~bw/ifconfig.partialmatch.revised2.diff > -- Brooks bw.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510282340.j9SNeJp5015039>