Hello Santiago Garcia, Dennis, Thank you for your assistance. With hint for the relevant man page "bridge-utils-interfaces" I found the bridge setup working using the configuration
auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.1.1 network 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports none bridge_hw 86:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa With that there is no race observed, I deem this bug report as invalid. Understanding now with your help the interactions of udev/systemd, I will split the automation script that worked for years to one variant for old setups/non-systemd machines and use the new features for new machines. Santiago Garcia Mantinan writes: > Hi! > > First I'd like to thank Dennis for his good support, as always > ;-) > >> > $ ifup virtbr0 > Cannot find device "virtbr0" > ifup: failed >> to bring up virtbr0 >> >> It is because the "bridge_ports" directive is missing. From >> the manpage bridge-utils-interfaces(5): >> >> bridge_ports interface specification this option must exist >> for the scripts to setup the bridge. >> >> Either specify "bridge_ports none" or "bridge_ports enp2s0 >> enp2s1" (or whatever your physical interfaces are named). > > That's it, you always have to specify the bridge_ports directive > so that we treat the interface as a bridge. > >> > I also reactivated "systemd-udevd": > ... >> > # systemctl reload /lib/systemd/network/80-bridgeutils.link >> > Failed to reload >> lib-systemd-network-80\x2dbridgeutils.link.mount: Unit >> lib-systemd-network-80\x2dbridgeutils.link.mount not found. > > I really believe that this contribution from Dennis should > not be needed, so I'd appreciate if you could test without > this extra stuff, which hasn't really been thoroughtly tested > and test with the standard setup, if we identify a problem > with the standard bridge_hw setup we'll go over it. I tested without the legacy stuff, worked, making this bug report irrelevant. Testing how far the change can be backported is done on demand later, not relevant here (Bullseye). > If you test it like that, please provide feedback to know if > it worked and if we can close the bug or not. It worked, please close the report. I would have closed it myself according to https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing if I would have been sure if "invalid" reports are closed the same way as "done" ones. Kind regards, Roman
