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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv2] qemu: support live change of the bridge used by a guest network device



On 03/29/2012 05:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:38:50PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
>> +    if (oldbridge &&
>> +        virNetDevBridgeRemovePort(oldbridge, olddev->ifname) < 0) {
>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
>> +    if (virNetDevBridgeAddPort(newbridge, olddev->ifname) < 0) {
>> +        if (virNetDevBridgeAddPort(oldbridge, olddev->ifname) < 0) {
>> +            qemuReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_FAILED,
>> +                            _("unable to recover former state by adding port"
>> +                              "to bridge %s"), oldbridge);
>> +        }
>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
> I think you need to emit 2 audit notifications here, one for the bridge
> being removed and one for the bridge being added.

That does sound like a good idea, but the current virDomainAuditNet()
function only reports MAC address, and virDomainAuditNetDevice() only
reports "/dev/net/tun" - neither of them gives any information about the
name of tap device or which bridge it is being attached to.

Right now, here are the audit messages that are logged when I do a full
device detach/attach of a network device:

type=VIRT_RESOURCE msg=audit(1333090567.694:1051): pid=0 uid=0
auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295
subj=system_u:system_r:virtd_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 msg='virt=kvm resrc=net
reason=detach vm="F14" uuid=de3aa186-be64-088e-b64a-a1a03e023ffd
old-net=52:54:00:00:01:81 new-net=?: exe="/usr/sbin/libvirtd" hostname=?
addr=? terminal=? res=success'

type=VIRT_RESOURCE msg=audit(1333090573.195:1053): pid=0 uid=0
auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295
subj=system_u:system_r:virtd_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 msg='virt=kvm resrc=net
reason=open vm="F14" uuid=de3aa186-be64-088e-b64a-a1a03e023ffd
net=52:54:00:00:01:81 path="/dev/net/tun" rdev=0A:C8:
exe="/usr/sbin/libvirtd" hostname=? addr=? terminal=? res=success'
type=VIRT_RESOURCE msg=audit(1333090573.196:1054): pid=0 uid=0
auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295
subj=system_u:system_r:virtd_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 msg='virt=kvm resrc=net
reason=open vm="F14" uuid=de3aa186-be64-088e-b64a-a1a03e023ffd
net=52:54:00:00:01:81 path="/dev/vhost-net" rdev=0A:EE:
exe="/usr/sbin/libvirtd" hostname=? addr=? terminal=? res=success'
type=VIRT_RESOURCE msg=audit(1333090574.092:1055): pid=0 uid=0
auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295
subj=system_u:system_r:virtd_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 msg='virt=kvm resrc=net
reason=attach vm="F14" uuid=de3aa186-be64-088e-b64a-a1a03e023ffd
old-net=? new-net=52:54:00:00:01:81: exe="/usr/sbin/libvirtd" hostname=?
addr=? terminal=? res=success'

It does a good job of telling me the MAC address that's going to be used
by the domain, but nothing about how it's connected to the network.

If we're staying within the current boundaries of reporting, is there
really value in logging a pair of messages that are ultimately just
telling us that the same mac address was detached then immediately
reattached, but not saying anything about what it was connected to?
Alternately, if we're going to start reporting about changes in network
connection, shouldn't we also be reporting what those connections are to
begin with? (I think that's a change in scope of what's being audited,
and requires a separate patch if we decide we want to do that).


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