reason behind 'tap_" prefix when creating a tap device for local bridging

[shakibamoshiri]

When creating a tap device (or maybe is called vLAN) SE adds "tap_" name as a prefix to each interface. e.g.

tap_site1 ...
tap_site2 ...

I am wondering what does this "tap_" prefix do and is it safe to remove this "tap_" prefix ?

// Generate TUN interface name
void GenerateTunName(char *name, char *prefix, char *tun_name, size_t tun_name_len)
{
	char instance_name_lower[MAX_SIZE];

	// Generate the device name
	StrCpy(instance_name_lower, sizeof(instance_name_lower), name);
	Trim(instance_name_lower);
	StrLower(instance_name_lower);
	Format(tun_name, tun_name_len, "%s_%s", prefix, instance_name_lower);

	tun_name[15] = 0;
}

So having this style

site1 ...
site2 ...

[chipitsine]

"tap" is a part of naming convention, i.e. you can enumerate interfaces and find local bridges

[chipitsine]

benefits of naming conventions are - you can build a list of network interfaces and separate "tap_*", i.e. created for certain purpose.

[shakibamoshiri]

benefits of naming conventions are - you can build a list of network interfaces and separate "tap_*", i.e. created for certain purpose.

I think type detection though naming convention is not the way of identifying devices.
it could like this

• brg_docker0
• ???_wg0
• tun_openvpn0
• tap_hub0

Why not ?

• docker0
• wg0
• tun0
• hub0

and check their type using other tools

ip --json -d link show  | jq  -r  '.[].linkinfo.info_data.type'

Anyway, is it safe to remove this "tap_" prefix ?
I think modifying this function GenerateTunName will do it. Returning a name without 'tap_" prefix.

[shipitsin-ilia]

there might be users who use that naming convention. you can break things for them.

[shakibamoshiri]

there might be users who use that naming convention. you can break things for them.

I am not going to do anything to the source code here, it is just for myself on my local machine. Is it safe to remove it ?

[shipitsin-ilia]

sure