[Kimchi-devel] [PATCH] Set virt_use_nfs when NFS pool is added.

[Christy Perez]

Replies in-line...


On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 17:49 -0300, Paulo Ricardo Paz Vital wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 16:20 -0500, Christy Perez wrote:
> > selinux has a special boolean to make it easier for disk images
> > to be stored on a remote NFS server. Set this to true when a user
> > adds an NFS storage pool.
> > 
> > Most virtualzation documentation recommends that this be set
> > to true. For example:
> > http://www.ovirt.org/Troubleshooting_NFS_Storage_Issues
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Virtualization_problems
> > 
> > This will leave it set to true, even if
> > the user removes NFS storage pools. It is not a security risk, and
> > we should not set it to False in case it had already been set by the
> > user for another non-kimchi use.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christy Perez <christy at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  src/kimchi/i18n.py               | 2 ++
> >  src/kimchi/model/storagepools.py | 5 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/kimchi/i18n.py b/src/kimchi/i18n.py
> > index d45f607..8ade7d7 100644
> > --- a/src/kimchi/i18n.py
> > +++ b/src/kimchi/i18n.py
> > @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ messages = {
> >      "KCHPOOL0034E": _("Unable to deactivate pool %(name)s as it is associated with some templates"),
> >      "KCHPOOL0035E": _("Unable to delete pool %(name)s as it is associated with some templates"),
> >      "KCHPOOL0036E": _("A volume group named '%(name)s' already exists. Please, choose another name to create the logical pool."),
> > +    "KCHPOOL0037E": _("Unable to set selinux bool virt_use_nfs for NFS pool usage. Depending on \
> > +                       your NFS config, this may prevent the pool from being used."),
> 
> IMO, this is too long. Why not only "Unable to set selinux bool
> virt_use_nfs for NFS pool usage." ?
It is long. :) I was trying to make it clear that this isn't always a
problem per se. A patch that Royce sent earlier that updated the README
described a situation which didn't need for this to be set. I am trying
to keep users from panicking if they see this in their error log. If
others think it needs to be re-worded, I am open to suggestions.
> 
> > 
> >      "KCHVOL0001E": _("Storage volume %(name)s already exists"),
> >      "KCHVOL0002E": _("Storage volume %(name)s does not exist in storage pool %(pool)s"),
> > diff --git a/src/kimchi/model/storagepools.py b/src/kimchi/model/storagepools.py
> > index 92b2496..d279ffa 100644
> > --- a/src/kimchi/model/storagepools.py
> > +++ b/src/kimchi/model/storagepools.py
> > @@ -126,6 +126,11 @@ class StoragePoolsModel(object):
> >              kimchi_log.error("Problem creating Storage Pool: %s", e)
> >              raise OperationFailed("KCHPOOL0007E",
> >                                    {'name': name, 'err': e.get_error_message()})
> > +        if params['type'] == 'netfs':
> > +            output, error, returncode = run_command(['setsebool', '-P',
> > +                                                    'virt_use_nfs=1'])
> > +            if error or returncode:
> > +                kimchi_log.error('KCHPOOL0037E')
> 
> Why only logging the message? I think this should be exposed to user.
For the same reason stated above. It might not need addressing, and I
don't want to bubble it up. For all we know, an admin uninstalled
selinux completely and they aren't going to need to work around it. If
someone is having issues, I want them to be able to find this as a
clue. 

> 
> >          return name
> > 
> >      def _clean_scan(self, pool_name):
> 

Thanks!

- Christy