RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1541013 - [RFE] warn about unknown/erroneous configuration options in NetworkManager.conf
Summary: [RFE] warn about unknown/erroneous configuration options in NetworkManager.conf
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: NetworkManager
Version: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
low
low
Target Milestone: beta
: 8.1
Assignee: Beniamino Galvani
QA Contact: Desktop QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1682336
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-02-01 14:16 UTC by Vladimir Benes
Modified: 2020-11-14 13:07 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-11-05 22:28:59 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
journal log (204.73 KB, text/x-vhdl)
2018-02-01 14:17 UTC, Vladimir Benes 		no flags Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2019:3623 0 None None None 2019-11-05 22:29:27 UTC

Description Vladimir Benes 2018-02-01 14:16:20 UTC 
Description of problem:
NM seems to be overwriting /etc/resolv.conf even if I set 
[main]
rc-managed=unmanaged

in /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/00-resolv.conf

$ NetworkManager --print-config
# NetworkManager configuration: /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf (lib: 10-slaves-order.conf, 20-connectivity-fedora.conf) (etc: 00-resolv.conf)

[main]
# plugins=ifcfg-rh,ibft
# rc-manager=file
# auth-polkit=true
# dhcp=dhclient
slaves-order=index
rc-managed=unmanaged

[connectivity]
uri=http://fedoraproject.org/static/hotspot.txt
response=OK
interval=300

[logging]
# backend=syslog
# audit=false


but I can see:
$ cat /etc/resolv.conf 
# Generated by NetworkManager
search redhat.com
nameserver 10.38.5.26
nameserver 10.35.255.14
nameserver 192.168.1.1


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
NetworkManager-1.10.2-9.el7.x86_64

Shouldn't be resolv.conf untouched for others to manage it?
Comment 2 Vladimir Benes 2018-02-01 14:17:46 UTC 
Created attachment 1389519 [details]
journal log
Comment 3 Vladimir Benes 2018-02-01 14:45:06 UTC 
ok, so the correct setup is 
rc-manager=unmanaged
not
rc-managed=unmanaged

the question is if we should accept incorrect configuration. Should I close it or change the subject?
Comment 4 Thomas Haller 2018-02-04 15:47:45 UTC 
(In reply to Vladimir Benes from comment #3)
> ok, so the correct setup is 
> rc-manager=unmanaged
> not
> rc-managed=unmanaged
> 
> the question is if we should accept incorrect configuration. Should I close
> it or change the subject?

Yes, NM silently ignores configuration settings that it doesn't understand.

NM does not fail to start in face of unknown configuration keys, because that would make it more complicated to write a configuration that works for various versions of NetworkManager. The unknown option might just be a new setting of a future version. Maybe, the user could workaround such strict policy via:

  [.config]
  enable=nm-version-min:1.12,nm-version-min:1.10.6

Another reason, why we cannot enable strict checking now, is that it might break existing (though bogus) configurations. We really should have done strict validation from the start.


I see however a use in warning about unknown keys (or keys with invalid settings). But it's extra work, and seems low priority to me.
Comment 6 Beniamino Galvani 2018-11-19 14:13:30 UTC 
Initial implementation at:
https://github.com/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/pull/251
Comment 12 errata-xmlrpc 2019-11-05 22:28:59 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:3623
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.