Re: [ovirt-devel] Firewalld migration.

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. Martin On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > You're right, but I don't think it matters; hosts will remain unaffected > until they're reinstalled via an upgraded Engine. > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:01 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