Re: [ovirt-devel] Firewalld migration.

Exactly my point. The engine should not manage those, but it should still know how to execute them to perform a proper host deploy. Martin On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> There seems to be a growing consensus towards moving custom rules out of >> Engine. It is believed that Engine shouldn't have assumed the role of a >> centralized firewall management system in he first place, and that using a >> proper 3rd party solution will be both favorable to the users (allowing >> better functionality and usability) and will allow us to simplify our >> firewall deployment process. >> >> Considering we don't have to manage custom rules, a host will be able to >> derive all the information regarding its firewalld services from its own >> configuration. Consequently, option #2 becomes a forerunner with Engine's >> involvement being even further diminished. > > > Y. > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hey, >>> >>> We're looking to migrate from iptables to firewalld. We came up with a >>> couple of possible approaches we'd like opinions on. I'll list the options >>> first, and will >>> >>> 1) Replicate existing flow: >>> >>> As of date, iptable rules are inserted in the database via SQL config >>> files. During host deployment, VdsDeployIptablesUnit adds the required rules >>> (based on cluster/firewall configuration) to the deployment configuration, >>> en route to being deployed on the host via otopi and its iptables plugin. >>> >>> Pros: >>> >>> - Reuse of existing infrastructure. >>> >>> Cons: >>> >>> - Current infrastructure is overly complex... >>> - Many of the required services are provided by firewalld. Rewriting them >>> is wasteful; specifying them (instead of providing actual service .xml >>> content) will require adaptations on both (engine/host) sides. More on that >>> later. >>> >>> >>> 2) Host side based configuration: >>> >>> Essentially, all the required logic (aforementioned cluster/firewall >>> configuration) to determine if/how firewalld should be deployed could be >>> passed on to the host via ohd. Vdsm could take on the responsibility of >>> examining the relevant configuration, and then creating and/or adding the >>> required services (using vdsm.conf and vdsm-tool). >>> >>> Pros: >>> >>> - Engine side involvement is greatly diminished. >>> - Simple(r). >>> >>> Cons: >>> >>> - Custom services/rules capabilities will have to be rethought and >>> re-implemented (current infrastructure supports custom iptables rules by >>> being specified in the SQL config file). >>> >>> >>> 3) Some other hybrid approach: >>> >>> If we're able to guarantee all the required firewalld services are >>> statically provided one way or the other, the current procedure could be >>> replicated and be made more simpler. Instead of providing xml content in the >>> form of strings, service names could be supplied. The responsibility of >>> actual service deployment becomes easier, and could be left to otopi (with >>> the appropriate modifications) or switched over to vdsm. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regardless, usage of statically provided vs. dynamically created services >>> remains an open question. I think we'd like to avoid implementing logic that >>> ask whether some service is provided (and then write it if it isn't...), and >>> so choosing between the dynamic and static approaches is also needed. Using >>> the static approach, guaranteeing all services are provided will be >>> required. >>> >>> I do believe guaranteeing the presence of all required services is worth >>> it, however custom services aren't going to be naively compatible, and we'll >>> still have to use similar mechanism as described in #1 (service string -> >>> .xml -> addition of service name to active zone). >>> >>> >>> Your thoughts are welcome. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Leon >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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