I use a vlan(4) on top of a tap(4). Since the rewrite that made vlan(4) MP-safe I got errors during boot because my tap0 is not UP when I try to bring my vlan up.
Now that tap(4) has been separated from tun(4) is there any reason to still treat it as a special interface? Does it need to be started *after* pppoe(4)? If not the diff below fixes my issue. Index: netstart =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/etc/netstart,v retrieving revision 1.168 diff -u -p -r1.168 netstart --- netstart 27 Mar 2016 20:32:42 -0000 1.168 +++ netstart 18 Jul 2016 12:54:55 -0000 @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ fi # Configure all the non-loopback interfaces which we know about, but # do not start interfaces which must be delayed. Refer to hostname.if(5) -ifmstart "" "trunk svlan vlan carp gif gre pfsync pppoe tun tap bridge pflow" +ifmstart "" "trunk svlan vlan carp gif gre pfsync pppoe tun bridge pflow" # The trunk interfaces need to come up first in this list. # The (s)vlan interfaces need to come up after trunk. @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ fi # require routes to be set. TUN might depend on PPPoE, and GIF or GRE may # depend on either of them. PFLOW might bind to ip addresses configured # on either of them. -ifmstart "pppoe tun tap gif gre bridge pflow" +ifmstart "pppoe tun gif gre bridge pflow" # Reject 127/8 other than 127.0.0.1. route -qn add -net 127 127.0.0.1 -reject >/dev/null
