On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 23:05 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 06:25 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:25:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:49:42PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>>>> SUSE generates a random name of the format linux-XXXXXX (I'm not sure
> >>>>> how many
> >>>>> My proposal is that we should consider changing the default hostname
> >>>>> for Fedora
> >>>>> 26 to be either FED-XXXXXXXXXXX or FEDORA-XXXXXXXX. The former allows
> >>>>> for a
> >>>>
> >>>> How about non-yelly Fedora-XXXXXXXXXXX? Since SUSE apparently does
> >>>> lower case, that should be fine, right?
> >>>
> >>> Bastian Nocera also filed
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392925,
> >>> where he proposes "fedora" as the hostname. I think "fedora" is better
> >>> than
> >>> "localhost", and a non-constant hostname would be even better.
> >>> For interactive installs (like with anaconda) it would be great if we
> >>> could
> >>> ask for the hostname. For non-interactive ones, "Fedora-[0-9a-z-]{8}"
> >>> seems
> >>> like a good option (*). It would give "branding", and solve the freeipa
> >>> issues.
> >>> It would also be a good default for the interactive case, so that people
> >>> can
> >>> "click through" without having to pick anything.
> >>>
> >>> (*) The suffix could include dashes for more possibilities, but they
> >>> should
> >>> not be adjacent or at the end.
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of defaulting to "Fedora-[0-9a-z-]{8}" myself. However,
> >> I'm concerned that people don't realize that we can, in fact, set the
> >> hostname during installation. People usually don't because Anaconda
> >> doesn't currently make that mandatory or otherwise note that it's
> >> possible during the initial panel of spokes (hint: it's the networking
> >> spoke), and so the default of "localhost" continues on without anyone
> >> being the wiser.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If the hostname is non-constant, can we also arrange that, by default,
> > this hostname is never sent over the network? In particular, I think
> > that DHCP requests should *not* include this hostname. We're already
> > starting to randomize MAC addresses -- there's no reason to give a
> > persistent per-installation identifier to every network.
>
>
> If this is a problem (and I'm not necessarily convinced it is), it's a problem
> already for anyone using DHCP who set a hostname manually. The fact that the
> default happens to be constant (and therefore indistinguishable) is a
> side-effect.
>
> If this is something that is genuinely concerning from a privacy point of
> view,
> then that should be changed in the DHCP client software rather than at the
> default hostname level. If it's not acceptable to send a unique default
> hostname
> then it must be equally unacceptable to send a manually selected hostname. (At
> least a randomly-generated one is only unique; a chosen one may in fact be
> possible to use for individual identification as well.)
Although this is true, one thing we could do is set a default hostname
that is static ("fedora" or similar is fine), and teach the utilities
used to join an AD/IPA/etc.. domain to generate a new random hostname if
they detect the hostname is the generic "static" one.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
