Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 723936
Interfacing naming unpredictable when specifying HWADDR on subinterfaces
Last modified: 2013-02-21 05:25:33 EST
Description of problem:
If the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0.123 file contains a HWADDR declaration, the physical interface can improperly named eth0.123 instead of eth0.123. It would be nice for udev to ignore VLAN interface configurations entirely.
Sample configuration that would cause problems:
Just don't specify HWADDR for vlan. Do it only in the real physical interface.
Agreed. Here's a conversation on #udev from back in July...
[11:04am] haraldh: Norm, pong
[11:04am] Norm: i had a RHEL question regarding udev naming interfaces using a subinterface name (eth0.14) instead of the real name (eth0), but i'm suspecting it may be due to my specifying HWADDR in ifcfg-eth0 and in ifcfg-eth0.14
[11:05am] haraldh: ouch
[11:05am] haraldh: please do not do that in ifcfg-eth0.14
[11:06am] Norm: hehe
[11:06am] Norm: let me tell you, when udev names your interface "eth0.14", you're in for a world of hurt
[11:06am] haraldh: true
[11:07am] Norm: this is a RHEL5 -> RHEL6 upgrade, in previous versions it was equally unnecessary, but didn't hurt anything
[11:07am] haraldh: mmhh.. yes
[11:07am] Norm: anyway, i'm hopeful that this reboot will straighten everything out
[11:07am] haraldh: Norm, can you open a bugzilla for this?
[11:07am] Norm: sure thing
[11:07am] haraldh: so I will not forget
[11:07am] haraldh: thank you!
[11:07am] Norm: np, thank you!
Created attachment 531275 [details]
proposed patch (against upstream git)
What do you think, Bill?
Seems reasonable for 6.3, but not for 6.2 at this point.
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.