[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv2 1/3] v1: allow guest to guest IPv6 without gateway definition



On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> This patch adds the capability for virtual guests to do IPv6
> communication via a virtual network interface with no IPv6
> (gateway) addresses specified.  This capability currently
> exists for IPv4.
>
> This patch allows creation of a completely isolated IPv6 network.
>
> Note that virtual guests cannot communication with the virtualization
> host via this interface.  Also note that:
>       net.ipv6.conf.<interface_name>.disable_ipv6 = 1
>
> Also not that starting libvirtd has set the following:
>   net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-arptables = 1
>   net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-ip6tables = 1
>   net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables = 1
> although /etc/syslog.conf has them all set to 0.

Yeah :-(, it's a rather unfortunate chain of events that leads to this,
caused by the following:

1) the bridge module in the kernel has "1" compiled in as the default,
so that's what is set when the module is first loaded,

2) the settings in sysctl.conf are set during startup of either the
NetworkManager or network service (depending on which you've chosen).
This is done after any bridges in the system config are started, so if
you have a bridge defined there, the bridge module will be loaded, then
"sysctl -p" will be run, thus making sure the setting from
/etc/sysctl.conf is enacted. If the system has no bridges defined,
"sysctl -p" will fall on deaf ears, since those tunables don't exist yet.

3) sometime later libvirt creates a bridge device with an ioctl().
Unknown to libvirt, this causes the bridge module to autoload, and it of
course starts up with the compiled-in default settings of "1".

For many reasons it's not desirable for libvirt to run "sysctl -p"
(potential side effects on other completely unrelated subsystems) or
even manually set those few items (maybe the admin really *does* want
that policy).

>
> Note:  If it is desired to control this behavior by having something like
> ipv6='yes' on the <network> statement, then this should also be done for ipv4.

It's always nicer to not have to add another knob, and I was hoping that
we could get by on this one without it. There were a few potential
issues that we've discussed previously that could make it necessary to
not turn this on by default:

1) unintentionally opening up a communications line to the host via the
IPv6 link local address - as long as disable_ipv6 is set for the
interface, this isn't an issue.

2) some installations don't have ip6tables - my opinion on this one is
that ip6tables is part of the iptables package, and people shouldn't be
building/installing just "part" of a package anyway.

3) Even if ip6tables is available on the system, the additional commands
may fail on some systems - this is our Waterloo :-( I finally just now
tried disabling the ipv6 module on a RHEL6 system, then running
"ip6tables -S". I was greeted by the following error message and a non-0
exit code:

  ip6tables v1.4.7: can't initialize ip6tables table `filter': Address
family not supported by protocol
  Perhaps ip6tables or your kernel needs to be upgraded.
  [root rhel6-guest laine]# echo $?
  3

This means that the addition of this patch as-is would result in libvirt
failing to start any network on a system that had disabled IPv6, and my
guess is there are still a lot of those around.

So we're unfortunately going to have to add a <network ipv6='yes'> to
enable this; if you don't have the time, I'll add that tonight and repost.

(I disagree that an ipv4 attribute is also needed. the rules to allow
ipv4 have been there by default since the networks were added to
libvirt, so we don't want them disabled by default, and up to now nobody
has ever asked for them to be manually disabled, so there apparently
isn't a need for it. If it ever does come up, we can add the attribute
then, but I'd rather not bloat the grammar just for the sake of symmetry.)

Other than that, the patch looks fine.

> ---
>  docs/formatnetwork.html.in  | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  src/network/bridge_driver.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/formatnetwork.html.in b/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
> index 49206dd..7b3b25c 100644
> --- a/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
> +++ b/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
> @@ -773,5 +773,23 @@
>          &lt;/forward&gt;
>        &lt;/network&gt;</pre>
>  
> +    <h3><a name="examplesNoGateway">Network config with no gateway addresses</a></h3>
> +
> +    <p>
> +    A valid network definition can contain no IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.  Such a definition
> +    can be used for a "very private" or "very isolated" network since it will not be
> +    possible to communicate with the virtualization host via this network.  However,
> +    this virtual network interface can be used for communication between virtual guest
> +    systems.  This works for IPv4 and <span class="since">(Since 1.0.1)</span> IPv6.
> +    </p>
> +
> +    <pre>
> +      &lt;network&gt;
> +        &lt;name&gt;nogw&lt;/name&gt;
> +        &lt;uuid&gt;7a3b7497-1ec7-8aef-6d5c-38dff9109e93&lt;/uuid&gt;
> +        &lt;bridge name="virbr2" stp="on" delay="0" /&gt;
> +        &lt;mac address='00:16:3E:5D:C7:9E'/&gt;
> +      &lt;/network&gt;</pre>
> +
>    </body>
>  </html>
> diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver.c b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
> index 75f3c3a..0fdb635 100644
> --- a/src/network/bridge_driver.c
> +++ b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
> @@ -1617,15 +1617,16 @@ networkRemoveRoutingIptablesRules(struct network_driver *driver,
>      }
>  }
>  
> -/* Add all once/network rules required for IPv6 (if any IPv6 addresses are defined) */
> +/* Add all once/network rules required for IPv6.
> + * Even if no IPv6 addresses are defined, allow IPv6 commuinications
> + * between virtual systems.  If any IPv6 addresses are defined, then
> + * add the rules for regular operation.
> + */
>  static int
>  networkAddGeneralIp6tablesRules(struct network_driver *driver,
>                                 virNetworkObjPtr network)
>  {
>  
> -    if (!virNetworkDefGetIpByIndex(network->def, AF_INET6, 0))
> -        return 0;
> -
>      /* Catch all rules to block forwarding to/from bridges */
>  
>      if (iptablesAddForwardRejectOut(driver->iptables, AF_INET6,
> @@ -1653,6 +1654,10 @@ networkAddGeneralIp6tablesRules(struct network_driver *driver,
>          goto err3;
>      }
>  
> +    /* if no IPv6 addresses are defined, we are done. */
> +    if (!virNetworkDefGetIpByIndex(network->def, AF_INET6, 0))
> +        return 0;
> +
>      /* allow DNS over IPv6 */
>      if (iptablesAddTcpInput(driver->iptables, AF_INET6,
>                              network->def->bridge, 53) < 0) {
> @@ -1689,11 +1694,12 @@ static void
>  networkRemoveGeneralIp6tablesRules(struct network_driver *driver,
>                                    virNetworkObjPtr network)
>  {
> -    if (!virNetworkDefGetIpByIndex(network->def, AF_INET6, 0))
> -        return;
> +    if (virNetworkDefGetIpByIndex(network->def, AF_INET6, 0)) {
> +        iptablesRemoveUdpInput(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge, 53);
> +        iptablesRemoveTcpInput(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge, 53);
> +    }
>  
> -    iptablesRemoveUdpInput(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge, 53);
> -    iptablesRemoveTcpInput(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge, 53);
> +    /* the following rules are there even if no IPv6 address has been defined */
>      iptablesRemoveForwardAllowCross(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge);
>      iptablesRemoveForwardRejectIn(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge);
>      iptablesRemoveForwardRejectOut(driver->iptables, AF_INET6, network->def->bridge);


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]