On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:53 PM Alexander Chernikov <melif...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > My main question here is the desired ownership model. I don’t have a > strong opinion on whether the userland of the kernel should own loopback > creation. > However, I think that: > 1) the behaviour should be consistent (either both of them created by the > userland or both created by the kernel) > 2) the process should be independent (e.g. adding address from one family > shouldn’t result in adding address from the other family). > For example, it can be either userland explicitly creates both or the > kernel creates both on interface up, using protocol hooks). > 3) I’m not sure SIOCSIFADDR should be (ab)used by the drivers ioctls(). > That model dates back to BSD 4.4 and doesn’t look well in presence of event > handlers. > Most drivers (default ethernet handler, loop, gre,disc,me,ipsec) just set > IFF_UP there. > > More than happy to hear what other’s think on the issue(s) > > It seems that loopback addresses are optional: I haven't found an RFC requiring their presence, but I'd like to have more information on this. So, the ownership of their creation seems to me good from the userland (i.e.: rc.d): Administrators are free to configure them or not. I agree with point 1 (consistency) and point 2 (independency), and about point 3 I have no technical knowledge here, but the work of cleaning up and making the proposal coherent seems good too :-) Regards, Olivier
