[systemd-devel] [question] networkd: Any support for hooks?

[Cameron Norman]

El mié, 8 de oct 2014 a las 10:24 , Marcel Holtmann 
<marcel at holtmann.org> escribió:
> Hi Cameron,
> 
>>>>>>  ifupdown [1], NetworkManager, and WICD all support hooks for 
>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>  network interface is configured or deconfigured (before and 
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>  these actions).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Are there any plans to support something along these lines? If 
>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>  what will that look like?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  If there are no plans, how do networkd's developers feel about 
>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>  the feature (will not merge, or will accept patches, etc.) ?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I am sceptical to adding hooks, so would need a lot of 
>>>>> convincing.
>>>>>  What we do, however, is to expose the configuration state using 
>>>>> the
>>>>>  sd-network C API, which external programs can watch and react on 
>>>>> (see
>>>>>  how timesyncd and resolved currently works).
>>>> 
>>>>  Does the C API allow programs to temporarily stall bringing up or 
>>>> down
>>>>  the interface, or does it only deliver signals of if state?
>>> 
>>>  No it does not allow synchronous hooks. Only asynchronous 
>>> notification
>>>  is supported.
>>> 
>>>>  Out of curiosity, where does your aversion to hooks come from? 
>>>> Does it
>>>>  add significant complication code wise, or is it more with 
>>>> respect to
>>>>  using networkd before any filesystems are mounted (thus the hook 
>>>> files
>>>>  would not be present)?
>>> 
>>>  Well, we want networkd to be clean and properly written, and I 
>>> simply
>>>  have the suspicion that if start allowing glueing in badly 
>>> integrated
>>>  stuff via shell scripts, we'll have a hard time to ever fix this
>>>  again. I mean, network management solutions that shell out to 
>>> external
>>>  tools we have enough, but networkd is really not supposed to be 
>>> like
>>>  that. It shouldn't just be a glued together thing, but somewhat
>>>  uniform.
>> 
>>  Ok, that is a good reason, what I had slightly imagined.
>> 
>>  Now that I have looked in the hook dirs of ifupdown more closely, I
>>  have noticed pretty much only async stuff, except for some ethtool,
>>  wpasupplicant, and avahi-autoipd scripts. The avahi-autoipd one 
>> seems
>>  like it may be misplaced, and is probably just fine in post-down
>>  (which is async, compared to down).
> 
> actually not using avahi-autoipd is the way you really want to go. 
> Especially since networkd will do IPv4LL setup for you anyway. Same 
> applies to ethtool hooks since they should be done by link files and 
> configured by udev.

udev was indeed my first thought for ethtool, however how would the 
ethtool commands be hooked in on containers? Or is ethtool not relevant 
there?

Thanks,
--
Cameron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20141009/774daae3/attachment.html>