[ovirt-devel] Firewalld migration.

Tue Mar 28 15:29:27 UTC 2017

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com> wrote:

> > But we do not want to support custom firewall rules, we are not a
> firewall
> > manager.
> > IMO, oVirt should support the hardening of its services and co-exist with
> > other rules.
> > Custom firewall settings imply one of these:
> > - We need to extend current firewall options.
> > - It needs to be implemented outside oVirt.
> >
> > But if the need to support back doors is proven to be a must, then
> implement
> > them
> > outside the main core solution, these edge cases should not block the
> main
> > business
> > logic.
>
> I seem to remember that the one feature that sets us apart from
> everybody else is that we know how to manage the bare metal. And the
> current standing decision I know about is that we want to keep that
> capability.
>
> Yaniv? Is that still so?
>

It is, but we also need to acknowledge that:
1. We can't configure (and/or possibly customize) everything (NTP?
multipath.conf configuration? even vdsm.conf!). We strive to improve and do
it well, but there are limits and challenges.
2. There are better tools to do it than via engine-config -> database ->
host-deploy, which are also easier for both us to support as well as our
users to work with.
Y.

> All other solutions (OpenStack, OpenShift, ..) require you to
> configure the bare metal first and then deploy virtualization. We
> simplify this for the sysadmin and that makes us special (for good and
> bad as Sven pointed out).
>
> So, if we do not want to support custom rules in the engine, then the
> whole host deploy script (not just firewall) needs to work very
> differently, because the end goal is to have properly deployed node
> for virtualization. And the "properly" word is defined both by us and
> the owner sysadmin.
>
> But deploy has to all or nothing operation, otherwise the engine will
> start using half configured host and you risk someone forgetting to
> run an extra script.
>
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Edward Haas <ehaas at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Martin Sivak <msivak at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Clients should be made aware their custom rules are going to be
> obsolete
> >> > and
> >> > that they should reapply them once they reinstall.
> >>
> >> Would you want to manually fix every reinstalled host? I would
> >> consider that very annoying. This has to be somewhat automatic if we
> >> want to support custom firewall rules. And although I agree the engine
> >> is not the right place for that, it is the only central place we have
> >> and from which we are starting the reinstall task.
> >
> >
> > But we do not want to support custom firewall rules, we are not a
> firewall
> > manager.
> > IMO, oVirt should support the hardening of its services and co-exist with
> > other rules.
> > Custom firewall settings imply one of these:
> > - We need to extend current firewall options.
> > - It needs to be implemented outside oVirt.
> >
> > But if the need to support back doors is proven to be a must, then
> implement
> > them
> > outside the main core solution, these edge cases should not block the
> main
> > business
> > logic.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > You're right, but I don't think it matters; hosts will remain
> unaffected
> >> > until they're reinstalled via an upgraded Engine.
> >> >
> >> > Clients should be made aware their custom rules are going to be
> obsolete
> >> > and
> >> > that they should reapply them once they reinstall.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber at redhat.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Effectively, upgrading will leave lingering (but nonetheless
> >> >> > operational)
> >> >> > iptables rules on the hosts. I'm not even sure there needs to be
> >> >> > special
> >> >> > upgrade treatment?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please describe the expected flow.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please note that at least when I tried, 'systemctl start firewalld'
> >> >> stops
> >> >> iptables.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <
> didi at redhat.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Leon Goldberg <
> lgoldber at redhat.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 1) Do we actually need iptables for any reason that isn't a
> legacy
> >> >> >> > consideration?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No idea personally.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Perhaps some users prefer that, and/or need that for integration
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> other
> >> >> >> systems/solutions/whatever.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If we drop iptables, how do you suggest to treat upgrades?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2 & 3) I am in favor of treating custom services as a
> requirement
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > plan
> >> >> >> > accordingly. Many (most, even) of the services are already
> >> >> >> > provided
> >> >> >> > by
> >> >> >> > either firewalld itself (e.g. vdsm, libvirt) or the 3rd party
> >> >> >> > packages
> >> >> >> > (e.g.
> >> >> >> > gluster). Some are missing (I've recently created a pull request
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > ovirt-imageio to firewalld, for example) and I hope we'll be
> able
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > get
> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> > the services to be statically provided (by either firewalld or
> the
> >> >> >> > relevant
> >> >> >> > 3rd party packages).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ideally I think we'd like use statically provided services, and
> >> >> >> > provide
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > capability to provide additional services (I'm not a fan of the
> >> >> >> > current
> >> >> >> > methodology of converting strings into xmls). I don't think we'd
> >> >> >> > want
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > limit usage to just statically provided services. (2)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As previously stated, I don't see a technical reason to keep
> >> >> >> > iptables
> >> >> >> > under
> >> >> >> > consideration. (3)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Yedidyah Bar David
> >> >> >> > <didi at redhat.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 1. Do we want to support in some version X both iptables and
> >> >> >> >> firewalld,
> >> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> >> is it ok to stop support for iptables and support only
> firewalld
> >> >> >> >> without
> >> >> >> >> overlap? If so, do we handle upgrades, and how?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2. Do we want to support custom firewalld xml to be configured
> on
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> host by us? Or is it ok to only support choosing among existing
> >> >> >> >> services,
> >> >> >> >> which will need to be added to the host using other means
> >> >> >> >> (packaged
> >> >> >> >> by
> >> >> >> >> firewalld, packaged by 3rd parties, added manually by users)?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 3. Opposite of (2.): Do we want to support firewalld services
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> added to the host using other means (see there)? Obviously we
> do,
> >> >> >> >> but:
> >> >> >> >> If we do, do we still want to support also iptables (see (1.))?
> >> >> >> >> And
> >> >> >> >> if
> >> >> >> >> so, what do we want to then happen?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> (2.) and (3.) are not conflicting, each needs its own answer.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Didi
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Didi
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Didi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Devel mailing list
> >> > Devel at ovirt.org
> >> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Devel mailing list
> >> Devel at ovirt.org
> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170328/7a810101/attachment-0001.html>