Toni Mueller wrote: > Package: qemu-kvm > Version: 0.11.1+dfsg-1 > Severity: normal > > Hello, > > networking does not come up on my machine. I changed the script [] > # only add the interface to default-route bridge if we > # have such interface (with default route) and if that > # interface is actually a bridge. > if [ -n "$switch" -a -d /sys/class/net/$switch/bridge/. ]; then > /usr/sbin/brctl addif $switch $1 || : > logger -p daemon.info "kvm: added interface $1 to $switch" > fi > --------------------------------------- cut > > My "normal" routing table looks like this: > > $ netstat -rn > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface > 217.0.118.194 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 > 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 br0 > 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0 > > > > After starting a VM, I found this in my /var/log/daemon.log: > > Mar 6 16:12:22 debian logger: kvm: found switch ppp0 > > This is obviously wrong. I suggest to check for bridge interfaces > instead of interfaces with a default route, and add the tapN interface > to that.
The thing here is that the supplied script is very simplistic. It is only intended for trivial most common situation, and even that is not completely handled (the bridge isn't created automatically). This is because kvm isn't really intended to be smart and figure it all out, and because messing with the network is just too fragile (I for one will hate packages which substitute my eth0 with a bridge and change firewall rules behind my back). There are two ways around this, and neither of them involves changes in kvm package. One is to use more advanced support tools like virt-manager, which has quite large piece of code to support networking in different variations. And another is to change the script in question (/etc/kvm/kvm-ifup) to do what is right on your host. I'd say this is the best option - you know your setup, and it is a configuration file for exactly this reason. Default /etc/kvm/kvm-ifup will never try to cover all cases. Maybe it is a good idea to look at the bridge and add the interface to the bridge if there's only one bridge. But I don't really see why it is better than just using the interface with default route -- maybe even that is overkill and/or illogical: since we don't create the bridge at install time, why should we try to find such a bridge in kvm-ifup? Toni, do you agree? Thanks! /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
