[lfs-support] 70-persistent rules

Mike Johnston mkejohnston at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 9 13:30:56 PST 2013





----- Original Message -----
From: Michael E. Maher <michael at maheronline.co.uk>
To: Mike Johnston <mkejohnston at yahoo.com>
Cc: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 70-persistent rules

On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 13:13 -0800, Mike Johnston wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Geoff Swan <gswan3 at bigpond.net.au>
> To: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 70-persistent rules
> 
> 
> On 10/01/2013 12:27 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Thomas de Roo <thomas at de-roo.org>
> > To: Mike Johnston <mkejohnston at yahoo.com>; LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 70-persistent rules
> >
> > On 01/09/13 13:32, Mike Johnston wrote:
> >> From: Michael E. Maher <michael at maheronline.co.uk>
> >> To: Mike Johnston <mkejohnston at yahoo.com>
> >> Cc: LFS Support List <lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:55 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [lfs-support] 70-persistent rules
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 11:03 -0800, Mike Johnston wrote:
> >>> I'm using LFS 7.2 all built and is running almost fine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm trying to get multiple nics with stable names.  I have the
> >>> 70-persistent-net.rules file set matching on mac addresses.  The
> >>> problem is the file never seems to take effect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Any ideas what might cause this?  Anything in the kernel need to
> >>> configured specifically?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I had this working beautifully on LFS 6.3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could be any number of things
> >>> What permissions do you have set for the file?
> >>> Are you sure it is located in the correct directory?
> >> I>s there anything in the output of dmesg?
> >>
> >>> Could you share the contents of the file so we can see if there is
> >>> something wrong with the formatting?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Michael
> >> Here you go:
> >>
> >> Permissions are 644 root ownership located in /etc/udev/rules.d  I'd really prefer to bus address ("KERNELS==") but that doesn't work, so I switched to MAC and still can't get it to work.
> >> Nothing shows up in dmesg about renaming or anything like that.  It shows the driver finding the NICs and assigning them the names without any respect to my rules.
> >>
> >> Here's the contents of the file:
> >>
> >> # This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules
> >> # program, run by the persistent-net-generator.rules rules file.
> >> #
> >> # You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
> >> # line, and change only the value of the NAME= key.
> >>
> >> # net device e1000e
> >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:25:90:a4:9d:4f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
> >>
> >> # net device e1000e
> >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:25:90:a4:9d:4e", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks again
> >>
> >> Have you tried to put the rule for eth0 first, and the rule for eth1 second?
> >> Groet,
> >> Thomas
> >
> > I have tried same result.  It seems like it's not even reading the file at all.  Any other configs that I might be missing either in the kernel or elsewhere?  Any chance udev is not running the scripts in /lib/udev?
> >
> >
> >
> >Try removing ATTR{dev_id} from the rule, as it's probably not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I have done that no effect.  Really baffled here.  Anything that would stop this from being processed on boot up?
> 

>If you delete the file is it recreated? That should test if the scripts
>are running.

>I know it's obvious, but are you sure you have the correct MAC address
>for each interface. One thing to try if the file is recreated is to
>change the name to something like "eth7" to avoid any confusion between
>1 and 2.

>Thanks,
>Michael


It is not re-created.  If i run the script manually to init the file (lfs instructions) it create that file.  I just changed swapped eth0 and eth1.

Does that offer any clues?|

Thanks again




More information about the lfs-support mailing list