Re: [ovirt-devel] Firewalld migration.

I think I like the playbook proposal the best. Lets assume the engine provides a firewall.yaml playbook somewhere in /etc: - The default playbook would contain our default firewalld configuration (we should also provide it in /usr/share/doc to give the user a reference) - The engine or host deploy script can provide ansible variables so the playbook can even be a parametrized one (port numbers) - The user can add rules he needs - The user can REPLACE the content with iptables rules if he wishes so (we can even say it is unsupported, but possible) As an extension: - We can provide ovirt-engine-firewalld ansible role with the default config so we can properly update files using RPM. The user defined (or default) playbook would just call this role and would stay intact during package upgrades. This is outside of database, allows customization and adapts to whatever firewall backend we might need. -- Martin Sivak SLA / oVirt On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Perina <mperina(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Martin Perina <mperina(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> so personally I don't like the current way how we store firewall >>>> configuration within engine (saving complete iptables commands as string). I >>>> think should change the way how we store firewall configuration: >>>> >>>> 1. On engine side I'd just store which services/ports (or port ranges) >>>> need to be enabled on host. By default only those services/ports that engine >>>> needs, but we can maintain also custom services defined by users >>> >>> >>> Agreed. I hope that's enough on one hand, on the other hand, users can >>> probably easily extend it via Ansible to the hosts and execution of a more >>> customized firewalld configuration there - we probably should not own it. >> >> >> Right, we should take care only about services/ports which we need. So we >> probably could drop the ability for users to define their own custom >> services/ports within engine for firewalld and force them to use Ansible or >> other tools to handle their own configuration. > > > ... >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Write plugin to ovirt-host-deploy which will translate those >>>> services/ports into actual firewall configuration on the host (it should >>>> detected what firewall is currently enabled and adapt) > > > ... and then ovirt-host-deploy will be in charge of executing that > playbook? Seems fairly straightforward. > Y. > >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. For newly installed host I'd just use firewalld >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. Also for 4.2 clusters I'd switch from iptables to firewalld when you >>>> execute Reinstall (we should document this and make firewalld preferred >>>> solution) >>> >>> >>> That's a good question. If a user had the default, non-changed policy we >>> have had in iptables - sure. >>> If not, I think it may be a bit of a challenge to switch otherwise. >> >> >> Right. We could detect if there's some custom firewall rules in >> IPTablesConfigSiteCustom engine-config option and if not we could probably >> assume that switching to firewalld could be performed. >> >> We could also mark iptables configuration as deprecated in 4.2 and declare >> that it will be removed in 4.3. That would add some time for users to >> prepare for the switch ... >> >>> Y. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> 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(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> >> 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(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> >> > 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(a)ovirt.org >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel