[libvirt PATCH] network: add private chains only if there are networks adding iptables rules

[Laine Stump]

On 6/8/20 2:39 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 6/5/20 2:56 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> Juan Quintela noticed that when he restarted libvirt he was getting
>> extra iptables rules added by libvirt even though he didn't have any
>> libvirt networks that used iptables rules. It turns out this also
>> happens if the firewalld service is restarted. The extra rules are
>> just the private chains, and they're sometimes being added
>> unnecessarily because they are added separately in a global
>> networkPreReloadFirewallRules() that does the init if there are any
>> active networks, regardless of whether or not any of those networks
>> will actually add rules to the host firewall.
>>
>> The fix is to change the check for "any active networks" to instead
>> check for "any active networks that add firewall rules".
>>
>> (NB: although the timing seems suspicious, this isn't a new regression
>> caused by the recently pushed f5418b427 (which forces recreation of
>> private chains when firewalld is restarted); it was an existing bug
>> since iptables rules were first put into private chains, even after
>> commit c6cbe18771 delayed creation of the private chains. The
>> implication is that any downstream based on v5.1.0 or later that cares
>> about these extraneous (but harmless) private chains would want to
>> backport this patch (along with the other two if they aren't already
>> there))
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c 
>> b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>> index b0bd207250..4145411b4b 100644
>> --- a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>> +++ b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>> @@ -91,28 +91,55 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
>>       static int
>> -networkHasRunningNetworksHelper(virNetworkObjPtr obj,
>> +networkHasRunningNetworksWithFWHelper(virNetworkObjPtr obj,
>>                                   void *opaque)
>>   {
>> -    bool *running = opaque;
>> +    bool *activeWithFW = opaque;
>>         virObjectLock(obj);
>> -    if (virNetworkObjIsActive(obj))
>> -        *running = true;
>> +    if (virNetworkObjIsActive(obj)) {
>> +        virNetworkDefPtr def = virNetworkObjGetDef(obj);
>> +
>> +        switch ((virNetworkForwardType) def->forward.type) {
>> +        case VIR_NETWORK_FORWARD_NONE:
>> +        case VIR_NETWORK_FORWARD_NAT:
>> +        case VIR_NETWORK_FORWARD_ROUTE:
>> +            *activeWithFW = true;
>> +            break;
>> +
>
>
> What's the rationale of "VIR_NETWORK_FORWARD_NONE" changing firewall 
> rules? Is
> this a corner case that the NONE type covers? Functions such as
> networkAddIPSpecificFirewallRules() are operating just with the NAT 
> and ROUTE
> forward types.


For historical reasons, a libvirt network that has no <forward> element 
is an "isolated" network, and libvirt adds rules to prevent any traffic 
from guests connected to that network from being forwarded anywhere 
else. These include 1) rules to allow incoming dhcp and dns requests 
(and possibly tftp) from guests on the network to the host, 2) allow 
traffic between guests on the isolated bridge (this rule would only be 
necessary in the case that the br_netfilter kernel module is loaded and 
there was some other lower priority rule that would otherwise block this 
traffic), and 3) reject forwarding of all packets to/from guests 
connected to this network and anywhere else outside the network 
(including a endpoints connected to a different network on the same 
host). Details are in


   https://libvirt.org/firewall.html


>
> (side note: there is no "firewall" string in formatdomain.html.in 
> docs. I think
> it's a good idea to mention that certain <forward> types will change 
> firewall
> settings of the host)


Sure. With maybe a pointer from there to firewall.html, which explains 
this all in excruciating detail. Patches welcome :-) . When libvirt 
virtual networks were first created, the lore is that part of the idea 
was to avoid exposing the user to complicated things like iptables and 
dnsmasq configuration, and we were also a bit more relaxed about what 
was required in terms of documentation. Around 2011 or so danpb sent an 
email to the list that ended up being referenced so much that it was 
saved as firewall.html, but I guess nobody ever thought to put a link 
from formatdomain.html to that document (maybe because it's not a part 
of the official API, and so is subject to change; I don't think there 
was ever any conscious decision that it *shouldn't* be linked from 
there; it just wasn't. It *does* come up when you do a google search for 
"libvirt firewall" though...).