Re: epair(4)

W dniu 16.05.2025 o 23:38, Kristof Provost pisze:
>
> On 16 May 2025, at 23:26, Marek Zarychta wrote:
>
>     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.
>
> Only the misconfigured ones. There’s no reason to ever assign IP 
> addresses to member interfaces.
> Again, |ifconfig bridge0 inet 192.0.2.1/24| is perfectly okay and will 
> continue to work. |ifconfig bridge0 addm epair0a ; ifconfig epair0a 
> inet 192.0.2.1/24| is not.
> The documentation has had this warning for a long time: “If the bridge 
> host needs an IP address, set it on the bridge interface, not on the 
> member interfaces.“
> https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/advanced-networking/index.html
>
> It should probably have been more prominent, but preventing 
> foot-shooting is better than warning about the foot-shooting.
>
> —
> Kristof
>
Got it - that sounds like a solid plan. Updating incompatible setups, 
one by one, before the release of FreeBSD 16.0-RELEASE will help reduce 
last-minute issues and make the transition smoother.

Cheers

Marek