Re: [Users] oVirt 3.1 - VM Migration Issue

From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, "Tom Brown" <tom(a)ng23.net&gt; Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:09:28 PM Subject: Re: [Users] oVirt 3.1 - VM Migration Issue On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:34:56AM -0500, Simon Grinberg wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, "Tom Brown" <tom(a)ng23.net&gt; > > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:20:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [Users] oVirt 3.1 - VM Migration Issue > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:05:37AM -0500, Simon Grinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: "Tom Brown" <tom(a)ng23.net&gt; > > > > Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber(a)redhat.com&gt;, users(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 2:11:14 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [Users] oVirt 3.1 - VM Migration Issue > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:06:12AM +0000, Tom Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> libvirtError: internal error Process exited while > > > > > >> reading > > > > > >> console log outpu > > > > > > could this be related to selinux? can you try disabling > > > > > > it > > > > > > and > > > > > > see if migration succeeds? > > > > > > > > > > It was indeed the case! my src node was set to disabled and > > > > > my > > > > > destination node was enforcing, this was due to the > > > > > destination > > > > > being the first HV built and therefore provisioned slightly > > > > > differently, my kickstart server is a VM in the pool. > > > > > > > > > > Its interesting that a VM can be provisioned onto a node > > > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > set to enforcing and yet not migrated to. > > > > > > > > I have (only a vague) memory of discussing this already... > > > > Shouldn't oVirt-Engine be aware of selinux enforcement? If a > > > > cluster > > > > has > > > > disabled hosts, an enforcing host should not be operational > > > > (or > > > > at > > > > least > > > > warn the admin about that). > > > > > > > > > I recall something like that, but I don't recall we ever > > > converged > > > and can't find the thread > > > > What is your opinion on the subject? > > > > I think that at the least, the scheduler must be aware of selinux > > enforcement when it chooses migration destination. > > > > Either all or non in the same cluster - that is the default. > > On a mixed environment, the non enforced hosts should be move to > non-operational, but VM should not be migrated off due to this, we > don't want them moved to protected hosts without the admin > awareness. > > As exception to the above, have a config parameter that allows in a > mixed environment to migrate VMs from an insecure onto a secure > host never the other way around. This is to support transition > from non-enabled system to enabled. Please see Tom's report above: > > > > > It was indeed the case! my src node was set to disabled and > > > > > my > > > > > destination node was enforcing ... We apparently cannot migrate an insecure guest into an enforcing system.

> > I think this is the closest I can get to the agreement (or at least > concerns) raised in that old thread I can't find.