On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:46 AM Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022-01-04 16:14:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> You have two interfaces which export the same onboard interface index.
> There is not much udev can do here; the only option is to disable
> onboard interface name policy. The attributes that are used by udev
> are "acpi_index" and "index". Check values of these attributes for
> all interfaces.
>
I will check, but please note that I didn't enable this. AFAIU Debian
uses the settings according to the guidelines of upstream.
>
> As is obvious from the log you provided, they did not "keep" their
> names but were renamed. Whether this is correct depends on rules your
> distribution is using.
>
AFAICS the kernel of today still assigns the "legacy" interface names,
which are renamed by udev later. I would suggest to improve conflict
It does, yes, but note this part:
Jan 03 11:30:14 nasl002b.example.com kernel: igb 0000:02:00.2 eth4: renamed from eth2
Jan 03 11:30:14 nasl002b.example.com kernel: igb 0000:02:00.3 eth5: renamed from eth3
Jan 03 11:30:14 nasl002b.example.com kernel: igb 0000:02:00.3 eth5: renamed from eth3
Here the kernel-assigned names (eth2, eth3) are being renamed to custom names (eth4, eth5). That's not something systemd or udev does by default. It suggests that you likely have old "70-persistent-net" udev rules (or something similar) that assign custom eth* names separately from the slot-based "predictable" naming – perhaps a leftover from Debian 7.
These interfaces aren't being skipped due to an earlier conflict – they are intentionally skipped by 80-net-setup-link.rules because they already have a custom 'NAME=' assigned by an earlier rule, so the "predictable" name is not applied to avoid breaking existing configuration.
It also makes me wonder whether one of your interfaces might actually have the "eno1" name assigned manually (through another udev rule) and not really through the "predictable" naming.
Mantas Mikulėnas
