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

[libvirt] A Big OOPS!!

A big OOPS!!!

On 10/23/2012 04:55 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 10/23/2012 04:10 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that quite yet. Let's wait until it's pushed
upstream. At the point, we'll probably want the first two (for F17 and
F18, which have dnsmasq-2.63 which according to you causes problems).
Not me, Simon Kelley the dnsmasq developer/maintainer/etc.

Rather than just pasting his comment here, got to look at the message he wrote:


There might be a way to make it work with just the gateway address (that is what listen-address really is because dnsmasq does not really need an address just the interface), but that is not how it was done.
After I sent the message, I just got something in from Simon Kelley which has some new info:

The heart of it is this:
OK, so this is vaguely embarrassing. Having checked the actual code,
rather than the changelog, I see that dnsmasq >=2.61 _already_ does the
right thing. Setting --bind-interfaces* and a single --listen-address
will cause the code to set SO_BINDTODEVICE on the DHCP socket(s).

So, there is not a problem with the existing libvirt command line.
I disagree.  I believe that the problem still exists.

What Simon says implies that everything is OK and nothing needs to be done but consider this:

1. What harm does it do to add the interface=<> specification in addition to everything else?

2. Note that Simon states "Setting --bind-interfaces* and a single --listen-address ". Well, I can define multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 listen-addresses to be on a single virtual interface. From what Simon says, that means all bets are off.

3. I suspect that many/most instances of dnsmasq only has a single address and that is why the problem has not manifested itself.

4.  I do not know if a v4 and v6 address counts as one or two.


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