On 25/08/15 16:20, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 03:50:10PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This patch series implements a L2 only interface concept which basically >> denies >> any kind of IP address configuration on these interfaces, but still allows >> them >> to be used as configuration end-points to keep using ethtool and friends. >> >> A cleaner approach might be to finally come up with the concept of net_port >> which a net_device would be a superset of, but this still raises tons of >> questions as to whether we should be modifying userland tools to be able to >> configure/query these interfaces. During all the switch talks/discussions >> last >> year, it seemed to me like th L2-only interface is closest we have to a >> "network port". >> >> Comments, flames, flying tomatoes welcome! >> >> Florian Fainelli (5): >> net: add IFF_L2_ONLY flag >> net: ipv4: Skip in_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces >> net: ipv6: Skip in6_dev initialization for IFF_L2_ONLY interfaces > > interesting idea! Do you know how kernel/iproute2 will react to lack of > in_dev?
Surprisingly pretty good so far, have not found a way to make the kernel crash ;) > No crashes I'm assuming, but what kind of errors are thrown? If you try to assign an IP address to such an interface, you get: # ifconfig gphy 192.168.1.1 ifconfig: SIOCSIFADDR: No buffer space available > imo great first step to have lightweight netdevs. +1 for 'net_port' in the > future. Thanks! -- Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
