[ovirt-devel] Firewalld migration.

[Martin Perina]

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

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)

3. For newly installed host I'd just use firewalld

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)


Martin



On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber at redhat.com>
> 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 at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber at redhat.com>
> >> 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 at redhat.com>
> >> > 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 at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170327/da689cf8/attachment-0001.html>