On Tue, 06 Sep 2016 08:08:59 -0700 Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosbu...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Kaur, Jasminder <jasminder.k...@hpe.com> wrote: > > >From: "Kaur, Jasminder" <jasminder.k...@hpe.com> > > > >If a bond is in use such as with IP address configured, removing it > >can result in application disruptions. If bond is used for cluster > >communication or network file system interfaces, removing it can cause > >system down time. > > > >An additional write option “?-” is added to sysfs bond interfaces as > >below, in order to prevent accidental deletions while bond is in use. > >In the absence of any usage, the below option proceeds with bond deletion. > >“ echo "?-bondX" > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters “ . > >If usage is detected such as an IP address configured, deletion is > >prevented with appropriate message logged to syslog. > > The issue of interfaces being arbitrarily changed or deleted is > not specific to bonding, and could affect any networking device > (physical or virtual). Thus, if a facility such as this is to be > provided, it should be generic, not specific to bonding. > > Separately, I'm not sure I see the value of such an option. > Other than administrator error, I'm not sure when bonds (or other > interfaces) would be randomly deleted. Are you seeing that happening? > > Also, this patch does not prevent other errors or malicious > change, e.g., "ip link set bondX down" or "ip addr del 1.2.3.4/24" would > still cause the service disruption you're trying to avoid. > > And, lastly, what Jiri said: use netlink for new bonding > functionality, not sysfs. > > -J > > >In the absence of any usage, the below option proceeds with deletion of > >slaves from a bond. > >“ echo "?-enoX" > /sys/class/net/bondX/bonding/slaves “ . > >If usage is detected such as an IP address configured on bond, deletion > >is prevented if the last slave is being removed from bond. > >An appropriate message is logged to syslog. > > > >Signed-off-by: Jasminder Kaur <jasminder.k...@hpe.com> I agree with Jay. Unless the kernel would crash there is no reason to prevent a user with sufficient permissions from deleting a device.
