Since commit c1907a218a ('libnm-core: remove gateway when
never-default=yes in NMSettingIPConfig'), the gateway gets normalized
away when the profile has never-default set.
That means,
$ nmcli connection modify "$PROFILE" ipv4.never-default yes ipv4.gateway 192.168.77.1
does not set the gateway. Likewise, if your profile has already never-default
enabled,
$ nmcli connection modify "$PROFILE" ipv4.gateway 192.168.77.1
will have no effect. That is confusing and undesirable.
Note that we don't adjust the GObject property setter for "gateway" to clear
never-default. I feel, setting one property in libnm should preferably
not unset another (there are exceptions to the rule, like for team
properties). However, for nmcli it's clear in which order properties
are set, so this change is right for the client tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785039https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/merge_requests/475
The profile's "ipv4.gateway" and "ipv6.gateway" has only one real
purpose: to define the next hop of a static default route.
Usually, when specifying a gateway in this way, the default route from
other addressing methods (like DHCPv4 or IPv6 autoconf) gets ignored.
If you have a WireGuard peer with "AllowedIPs=0.0.0.0/0" and
"wireguard.peer-routes" enabled, NetworkManager would automatically add
a route to the peer. Previously, if the user also set a gateway, that
route was suppressed.
That doesn't feel right. Note that configuring a gateway on a WireGuard
profile is likely to be wrong to begin with. At least, unless you take
otherwise care to avoid routing loops. If you take care, setting a
gateway may work, but it would feel clearer to instead just add an
explicit /0 manual route instead.
Also, note that usually you don't need a gateway anyway. WireGuard is a
Layer 3 (IP) tunnel, where the next hop is alway just the other side of
the tunnel. The next hop has little effect on the routes that you
configure on a WireGuard interface. What however matters is whether a
default route is present or not.
Also, an explicit gateway probably works badly with "ipv[46].ip4-auto-default-route",
because in that case the automatism should add a /0 peer-route route in a
separate routing table. The explicit gateway interferes with that too.
Nonetheless, without this patch it's not obvious why the /0 peer
route gets suppressed when a gateway is set. Don't allow for that, and
always add the peer-route.
Probably the profile's gateway setting is still wrong and causes the
profile not to work. But at least, you see all routes configured, and
it's clearer where the (wrong) default route to the gateway comes from.
(cherry picked from commit 115291a46f)
Enabling both peer-routes and never-default conflicts with having
AllowedIPs set to a default route. Let never-default win.
(cherry picked from commit 5da82ee3ea)
This will be useful to set future options on the NMIPConfig.
Yes, the code duplication of NMIP[46]Config is horrible. Needs
to be unified in the future.
(cherry picked from commit e8b86f8445)
The profile's "ipv4.gateway" and "ipv6.gateway" has only one real
purpose: to define the next hop of a static default route.
Usually, when specifying a gateway in this way, the default route from
other addressing methods (like DHCPv4 or IPv6 autoconf) gets ignored.
If you have a WireGuard peer with "AllowedIPs=0.0.0.0/0" and
"wireguard.peer-routes" enabled, NetworkManager would automatically add
a route to the peer. Previously, if the user also set a gateway, that
route was suppressed.
That doesn't feel right. Note that configuring a gateway on a WireGuard
profile is likely to be wrong to begin with. At least, unless you take
otherwise care to avoid routing loops. If you take care, setting a
gateway may work, but it would feel clearer to instead just add an
explicit /0 manual route instead.
Also, note that usually you don't need a gateway anyway. WireGuard is a
Layer 3 (IP) tunnel, where the next hop is alway just the other side of
the tunnel. The next hop has little effect on the routes that you
configure on a WireGuard interface. What however matters is whether a
default route is present or not.
Also, an explicit gateway probably works badly with "ipv[46].ip4-auto-default-route",
because in that case the automatism should add a /0 peer-route route in a
separate routing table. The explicit gateway interferes with that too.
Nonetheless, without this patch it's not obvious why the /0 peer
route gets suppressed when a gateway is set. Don't allow for that, and
always add the peer-route.
Probably the profile's gateway setting is still wrong and causes the
profile not to work. But at least, you see all routes configured, and
it's clearer where the (wrong) default route to the gateway comes from.
This will be useful to set future options on the NMIPConfig.
Yes, the code duplication of NMIP[46]Config is horrible. Needs
to be unified in the future.
We shall emit a changed signal when PolicyKit changes. That implies also
emitting the signal when PolicyKit starts. Watch the name owner for
that.
Note that I don't manage to actually receive the "Changed" signal from
PolicyKit. That seems to be due to wrong D-Bus configuration which
prevents the "Changed" signal from PolicyKit to reach NetworkManager.
That is independent from this patch.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/merge_requests/469
Fix the following error when invoking the Connect() p2p method:
call-p2p-connect: failed with Method “fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.P2PDevice.Connect” returned type “(s)”, but expected “()”
Fixes: b83f07916a ('supplicant: large rework of wpa_supplicant handling')
(cherry picked from commit a5338affb5)
Fix the following error when invoking the Connect() p2p method:
call-p2p-connect: failed with Method “fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.P2PDevice.Connect” returned type “(s)”, but expected “()”
Fixes: b83f07916a ('supplicant: large rework of wpa_supplicant handling')
Avoid unnecessary string copies. Most option don't have a delimiter
and numerical argument, and there is no need to clone the string.
(cherry picked from commit 61a97f8b0f)
error: bare words are no longer supported, please use "...": no != "yes"
error: ^
error: /builds/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/contrib/fedora/rpm/NetworkManager.20200418-170120.dp5cp5/SPECS/NetworkManager.spec:596: bad %if condition: no != "yes"
(cherry picked from commit ed94ab6e23)
error: bare words are no longer supported, please use "...": no != yes
error: /builds/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/contrib/fedora/rpm/NetworkManager.20200418-163008.VM582H/SPECS/NetworkManager.spec:596: bad %if condition: no != yes
(cherry picked from commit be78a12012)
