[CFT] Need Testers for: sysutils/bsdconfig

[Eugene Grosbein]

22.06.2012 14:37, Devin Teske пишет:

>> 5. Same for vlan16. For vlan9 is shows right 'IEEE 802.1Q VLAN network interface'.
>> It should work same way for vlan1-vlan4095 interfaces at least.
>>
> 
> I'd like to know if the sysctl MIB's for describing network interfaces is reliable. Maybe I'll keep the static list as a fallback. But yes, you're absolutely right -- I should have supported up to 5 digits even (ifconfig has internal limits of 16-bit unsigned integer for the interface instance-number).
> 
> 
>> 6. Same for ipfw0 pseudo-interface.
>>
> 
> Curious what sysctl says about it.

I do not know what sysctl subtree do you refer to.

>> 7. Networking Devices configuration does not allow to configure any interface
>> while there are mounted NFS volumes. Should present a warning only, not disallow the operation.
> 
> Did I completely disallow it?

Yes.

> I'll have to re-check -- I thought that I had made it so that you could view/edit the configuration but that the warning says that changes will not become effective until you either reboot or visit the menu again when no NFS mounts are active.
> 
> 
>> For example, it should be possible to configure new vlan interface while NFS mount
>> uses another clan.
>>
> 
> Do you know of a handy way of determining which NFS mount is using which network interface? And further, is there a handy way of traversing the route path to determine that one interface isn't required as an intermediary transit device? (meaning: can one truly ever know that making a new configuration active on any interface could not potentially drop your entire machine from the net with hung NFS mounts?)
> 
> Many months of testing in the lab produced no less than 6 edge-cases where -- if a network link or route is modified when NFS mounts are active -- the machine can enter an unstable/unusable state.
> 
> So we decided to err on the side of caution when it came to allowing settings to be made-active when NFS mounts are active.
> 
> I'm not against improving the code, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be safer to stick to disallowing any/all changes from being made-active (while allowing viewing/editing without making-active) when NFS mounts are active.
> 
> NOTE: There are other safe-guards too. For example, if you're logged in via SSH and using X11 forwarding while passing the "-X" flag (to use Xdialog(1)), you are disallowed from making a new hostname active (you can change the hostname, but not make it active) because that would cause the very next iteration of Xdialog(1) to fail due to a surreptitious X authority revocation based on the hostname-change in mid-session.

I'm sure that bsdconfig should emit warnings only but not disallow root to make any needed changes.
NFS may use completly unrelated routes/interfaces, X11 may be user over network without ssh -X etc.
It's pretty annoying for administrator to fight with tools thinking they know better  what root should do.

>> 8. In DNS Nameserver Configuration, it's not clear that one, in fact,
>> can remove unneeded DNS server through two-step procedure - first try to edit,
>> then clear the address. It should be more obvious at first.
>>
> 
> Can you have a look at "bsdconfig startup_rcconf" and see if that's a better way to go about the deletion-process?
> 
> Or perhaps you're just advocating a helpful message in the text above the menu list that explains how to delete the item? (least amount of work)

Again, just a message.

Eugene Grosbein