From nobody Sat May 17 05:15:26 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Zzsbh2RjXz5vy67 for ; Sat, 17 May 2025 05:15:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Zzsbg51WYz3M2f; Sat, 17 May 2025 05:15:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by kib.kiev.ua (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 54H5FQRK071801; Sat, 17 May 2025 08:15:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 54H5FQRK071801 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 54H5FQsc071800; Sat, 17 May 2025 08:15:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 08:15:26 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Kristof Provost Cc: Marek Zarychta , Cy Schubert , ivy@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: epair(4) Message-ID: 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> List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2D38F889-E8C9-49A9-AA80-D5A46FDFFD02@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Zzsbg51WYz3M2f X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US] X-Spamd-Bar: ---- On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:38:58PM +0200, Kristof Provost wrote: > As Lexi pointed out in another e-mail: users should assign addresses to the bridge, never to bridge member interfaces. > Could you, please, also explain why this is the requirement, besides stating that the configuration is invalid? Let me give some context there: for me, such config appears when I set up normal host, with the usual setting of IP address on a physical interface. Then some time later, realizing that I want to run a bhyve there as well, I need to add a bridge. But for situation where the host is remote and even without console access, it means to either keep the invalid config if IP address on interface, or blindly do the sensitive config update without a way to test it before reboot. So I at least want to understand why do I need to risk of making the machine non-reachable.