[Users] oVirt 3.1 - VM Migration Issue

[Simon Grinberg]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon at redhat.com>
> Cc: users at ovirt.org, "Tom Brown" <tom at ng23.net>
> 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 at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Tom Brown" <tom at ng23.net>
> > > Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber at redhat.com>, users at 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. 
 
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.