7:56 a.m.
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.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com> 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