networkd: make s-n-wait-online wait for at least one routable interface #482
Conversation
slyon
force-pushed
the
s-n-wait-online-routable
branch
from
1f5c78d
to
ebb14e4
Compare
tests/generator/test_args.py
Outdated
| ExecStart=/lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online -i lo:carrier -i eth99.42:carrier -i eth99.44:degraded | ||
| ExecStart=/lib/systemd/systemd-networkd-wait-online --any -o routable -i eth99.43 -i br0\n''') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I think we still want to have the "routable" interfaces listed in the first command line, too. As we also want those to be in "degraded"/"carrier" (link-local) state – in addition to at least one being routable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now included in 56b149c
Generally, we should be waiting on "routable" state (instead of "degraded") when we have static IP/dhcp4/dhcp6/RA. Our spec defines "at least one interface MUST be up on the link layer and have received layer 3 (IP) configuration" (ignoring link-local). We now start two separate "systemd-networkd-wait-online" processes. One waiting for "carrier" & "degraded" interfaces, not using "--any". Another one waiting just for "routable" interfaces, combined with "--any". Both blocking "network-online.target".
slyon
force-pushed
the
s-n-wait-online-routable
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a119c15
to
ba03349
Compare
slyon
force-pushed
the
s-n-wait-online-routable
branch
from
ba03349
to
56b149c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to be working as intended.
I just left one thought about bonds. I'm not sure if we should wait for carrier on all the members by default. The system doesn't need to have carrier on all the bond members to be online.
But to have it waiting for any member we'd need to create groups of members for each bond and have one call to wait-online --any for each group... maybe we could consider that in the future. Maybe we should recommend that bond members should be optional.
| @@ -1546,58 +1550,40 @@ _netplan_networkd_write_wait_online(const NetplanState* np_state, const char* ro | |||
| * come online. | |||
| */ | |||
| if (!(def->optional || def->activation_mode)) { | |||
| WaitOnlineData* d = g_malloc0(sizeof(WaitOnlineData)); | |||
| d->ignore_carrier = def->ignore_carrier; | |||
|
|
|||
| // Check if we have any IP configuration | |||
| // bond and bridge members will never ask for link-local addresses (see above) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thought: I wonder if we really should wait for all the bond members by default. One might have a bunch of the bond members disconnected for whatever reason and the system might still be online if at least one member is connected. I'd say it would be better to use --any for groups of interfaces that are members of the same bond. That would complicate the implementation though. I suppose we at least need to recommend setting all the members as optional (but not the bond itself) to avoid having anything blocking on the wait-online target...
Description
wait-online: wait for 'routable' state, if corresponding IPs are defined
Generally, we should be waiting on "routable" state (instead of "degraded") when we have static IP/dhcp4/dhcp6/RA.
Our spec defines "at least one interface MUST be up on the link layer and have received layer 3 (IP) configuration" (ignoring link-local).
We now start two separate
systemd-networkd-wait-onlineprocesses. One waiting for "carrier" & "degraded" interfaces (including the "routable" ones), not using "--any". Another one waiting just for "routable" interfaces, combined with "--any". Both blocking "network-online.target".FR-7838
Checklist
make checksuccessfully.make check-coverage).