[arch-general] On module blacklisting

older
[arch-general] linux 3.0 kernel...

Magnus Therning

11 Jun 2011 11 Jun '11

12:11 a.m.

I just read about the changes to module blacklisting[1] and I'm left wondering: 1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that correct? So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load modules at boot-up. (Is there even a way to configure modprobe to load modules on boot?) 2. When does this change take effect? Which version of which package will it come with? /M [1] http://www.archlinux.org/news/changes-to-module-blacklisting/ -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay

Attachments:

attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 198 bytes)

Show replies by date

Tom Gundersen

11 Jun 11 Jun

12:22 a.m.

Hi Magnus, On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that correct?

Correct.

...

So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load modules at boot-up.

Correct.

...

(Is there even a way to configure modprobe to load modules on boot?)

No (that's why we need to keep this in rc.conf).

...

2. When does this change take effect? Which version of which package will it come with?

The packages were moved to [core] shortly after the announcement was made. You should have received notifications when installing initscripts and udev. Cheers, Tom

Magnus Therning

12:28 a.m.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:22:56AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

Hi Magnus,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that correct?

Correct.

...
So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load modules at boot-up.

Correct.

...
(Is there even a way to configure modprobe to load modules on boot?)

No (that's why we need to keep this in rc.conf).

...
2. When does this change take effect? Which version of which package will it come with?

The packages were moved to [core] shortly after the announcement was made. You should have received notifications when installing initscripts and udev.

Thanks, that's exactly the info I was looking for :-) /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay

Philipp Überbacher

8:55 a.m.

Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-11 02:22:56 +0200:

...

Hi Magnus,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that correct?

Correct.

...
So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load modules at boot-up.

Correct.

...
(Is there even a way to configure modprobe to load modules on boot?)

No (that's why we need to keep this in rc.conf).

It was a lot nicer to have loading and blacklisting in one place though. I like Arch in part for the simplicity of its configuration and spreading out config files doesn't help. I also think that the Arch blacklisting semantics were better, but I'm not sure they actually worked as intended. Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is more convenient to comment/uncomment.

Dieter Plaetinck

9:15 a.m.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:55:35 +0200 Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-11 02:22:56 +0200:

...
Hi Magnus,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that correct?

Correct.

...
So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load modules at boot-up.

Correct.

...
(Is there even a way to configure modprobe to load modules on boot?)

No (that's why we need to keep this in rc.conf).

It was a lot nicer to have loading and blacklisting in one place though. I like Arch in part for the simplicity of its configuration and spreading out config files doesn't help. I also think that the Arch blacklisting semantics were better, but I'm not sure they actually worked as intended.

Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is more convenient to comment/uncomment.

it's bash you know. you=can; define=variables; like=this if you want everything on one line.

cantabile

9:16 a.m.

On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is more convenient to comment/uncomment.

Sounds like a job for netcfg profiles. ;) -- cantabile "Jayne is a girl's name." -- River

Heiko Baums

12:17 p.m.

Am Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:16:54 +0300 schrieb cantabile :

...

On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...
Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is more convenient to comment/uncomment.

Sounds like a job for netcfg profiles. ;)

Or networkmanager. ;-) Heiko

Philipp Überbacher

12 Jun 12 Jun

8:03 p.m.

Excerpts from cantabile's message of 2011-06-11 11:16:54 +0200:

...

On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...
Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is more convenient to comment/uncomment.

Sounds like a job for netcfg profiles. ;)

Yes, most likely nicer than rc.conf editing for dhcp/static and custom shell script for wlan, it's just that netcfg feels like just a wrapper around wpa_supplicant and thus somewhat pointless.

Martti Kühne

11:01 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: <snip>

...

Yes, most likely nicer than rc.conf editing for dhcp/static and custom shell script for wlan, it's just that netcfg feels like just a wrapper around wpa_supplicant and thus somewhat pointless.

Probably I should mention that netcfg *just works* here as a wrapper for the wired bridge config I use. So, no harm done on that part. On the other hand, the wireless_tools and wpa_supplicant dependencies (which really isn't relevant for wired desktop installations) could be patched to optdepends. Let's see, I've been having quite a hand for bash scripting in the past.

Martti Kühne

13 Jun 13 Jun

10:40 a.m.

actually... the parts I'm using (net-profiles daemon and afore-mentioned bridge config) aren't even breaking if wireless_tools and wpa_supplicant are missing. That kind of removes them as mandatory "dependencies" already.

Philipp Überbacher

17 Jun 17 Jun

8:08 a.m.

Excerpts from Martti Kühne's message of 2011-06-13 01:01:07 +0200:

...

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: <snip>

...
Yes, most likely nicer than rc.conf editing for dhcp/static and custom shell script for wlan, it's just that netcfg feels like just a wrapper around wpa_supplicant and thus somewhat pointless.

Probably I should mention that netcfg *just works* here as a wrapper for the wired bridge config I use. So, no harm done on that part. On the other hand, the wireless_tools and wpa_supplicant dependencies (which really isn't relevant for wired desktop installations) could be patched to optdepends. Let's see, I've been having quite a hand for bash scripting in the past.

I'm trying to make the switch to netcfg but it fails in mulltiple ways. 1) apparently a warning only when connecting to wlan: nl80211: 'nl80211' generic netlink not found The module is indeed not loaded, but not blacklisted either, it simply isn't there (can't modprobe it manually). 2) Ethernet seems to only work in debug mode: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_up dhcpcd -qL -t 10 eth0 DEBUG: DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up hostname eris [DONE] $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg -d ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: status reported to profile_down as: ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp down [BUSY] DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down dhcpcd -qx eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down if_down [DONE] $ sudo netcfg ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] > DHCP IP lease attempt failed. [FAIL] 3) static ethernet doesn't work at all: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument

...

Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17') Any ideas what's wrong?

Tom Gundersen

9:22 a.m.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

I'm trying to make the switch to netcfg but it fails in mulltiple ways.

1) apparently a warning only when connecting to wlan: nl80211: 'nl80211' generic netlink not found

The module is indeed not loaded, but not blacklisted either, it simply isn't there (can't modprobe it manually).

2) Ethernet seems to only work in debug mode: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_up dhcpcd -qL -t 10 eth0 DEBUG: DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up hostname eris [DONE] $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg -d ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: status reported to profile_down as: ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp down [BUSY] DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down dhcpcd -qx eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down if_down [DONE] $ sudo netcfg ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] > DHCP IP lease attempt failed. [FAIL] 3) static ethernet doesn't work at all: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17')

Any ideas what's wrong?

I don't have time to look at this in the next few days, so please file bug report and it will not be forgotten. -t

Philipp Überbacher

10:13 a.m.

Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-17 11:22:35 +0200:

...

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...
I'm trying to make the switch to netcfg but it fails in mulltiple ways.

1) apparently a warning only when connecting to wlan: nl80211: 'nl80211' generic netlink not found

The module is indeed not loaded, but not blacklisted either, it simply isn't there (can't modprobe it manually).

2) Ethernet seems to only work in debug mode: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_up dhcpcd -qL -t 10 eth0 DEBUG: DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up hostname eris [DONE] $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg -d ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: status reported to profile_down as: ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp down [BUSY] DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-dhcp DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down dhcpcd -qx eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_down if_down [DONE] $ sudo netcfg ethernet-dhcp :: ethernet-dhcp up [BUSY] > DHCP IP lease attempt failed. [FAIL] 3) static ethernet doesn't work at all: $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17')

Any ideas what's wrong?

I don't have time to look at this in the next few days, so please file bug report and it will not be forgotten.

-t

Thanks Tom, I'll do so. Philipp

Robin Martinjak

11:03 a.m.

...

...
...
$ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17')

Any ideas what's wrong?

I don't have time to look at this in the next few days, so please file bug report and it will not be forgotten.

-t

Thanks Tom, I'll do so.

Philipp

Try setting a NETMASK;

...

...
...
DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 Looks like netcfg is assuming a /24 netmask which makes 143.205.216.255 a net address (which ofc can't be used as a gateway)

Regards, Robin

Philipp Überbacher

7:30 p.m.

Excerpts from Robin Martinjak's message of 2011-06-17 13:03:44 +0200:

...

...
...
...
$ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17')

Any ideas what's wrong?

I don't have time to look at this in the next few days, so please file bug report and it will not be forgotten.

-t

Thanks Tom, I'll do so.

Philipp

Try setting a NETMASK;

...
...
...
DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 Looks like netcfg is assuming a /24 netmask which makes 143.205.216.255 a net address (which ofc can't be used as a gateway)

Regards, Robin

Afaik the /24 is correct for the local network, although I don't know what it means. Seems like this is called prefix length in the switch. The netmask according to the switch settings is 255.255.255.0. It definitely worked in rc.conf with 255.255.0.0 as netmask and aforementioned gateway, some links that can shed light on this stuff, especially the strange /24, would be welcome.

Taylor Hedberg

7:49 p.m.

Philipp Überbacher, Fri 2011-06-17 @ 21:30:45+0200:

...

Afaik the /24 is correct for the local network, although I don't know what it means. Seems like this is called prefix length in the switch. The netmask according to the switch settings is 255.255.255.0.

It definitely worked in rc.conf with 255.255.0.0 as netmask and aforementioned gateway, some links that can shed light on this stuff, especially the strange /24, would be welcome.

The "/24" is just another way of writing a netmask of 255.255.255.0. 24 is the number of bits in the network prefix. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIDR_notation.

Robin Martinjak

18 Jun 18 Jun

8:56 a.m.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:03:44PM +0200, Robin Martinjak wrote:

...

...
...
...
$ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 :: ethernet-moheim-static up [BUSY] DEBUG: status reported to profile_up as: DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ifup DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip route add default via 143.205.216.255 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > Adding gateway 143.205.216.255 failed DEBUG: profile_up connect failed [FAIL]

Pretty disappointing, considering that rc.conf and a really dumb bash script just works. The dhcp config is straight from the examples, the static one looks like this: CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='143.205.216.123' GATEWAY='143.205.216.255' DNS=('143.205.64.51','143.205.64.52','143.205.176.16','143.205.176.17')

Any ideas what's wrong?

I don't have time to look at this in the next few days, so please file bug report and it will not be forgotten.

-t

Thanks Tom, I'll do so.

Philipp

Try setting a NETMASK;

...
...
...
DEBUG: ethernet_iproute_up ip addr add 143.205.216.123/24 brd + dev eth0 Looks like netcfg is assuming a /24 netmask which makes 143.205.216.255 a net address (which ofc can't be used as a gateway)

Regards, Robin

Correction: 143.205.216.255/24 is a broadcast, not net address ;)

4703

Age (days ago)

4710

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

16 comments

9 participants

participants (9)

cantabile
Dieter Plaetinck
Heiko Baums
Magnus Therning
Martti Kühne
Philipp Überbacher
Robin Martinjak
Taylor Hedberg
Tom Gundersen