On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:55:33PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 3/11/19 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > What I mean is that this transaction is checking the filter, nat and > > mangle tables of both ipv4 and ipv6. You have a missing mangle table > > for ipv6, but this "ignore errors" policy means we'll even ignore > > the missing "filter" table for ipv4 for example which is something we > > have previously considered mandatory. > > > > We will still get a failure later when the network is started though > > I guess. > > I know, and to me that's acceptable. It will not be any worse with this > patch. Only better. Because right now we fail even for IPv6 even though you > might not use it. Yes, my main real concern is how well this works from POV of debugging failures users report. With the current behaviour we'll see an error that the main iptables mangle chain doesn't exist, which is accurate. With the new behaviour we'll see an error that the libvirt chain doesn't exist. It isn't as obvious then that the problem is actually the kernel missing its built-in chain, rather than a bug in libvirt. Perhaps we could just issue a VIR_WARN in startup if we see one of the built-in chains missing. That would encourage people to enable all the kernel features, without forcing it & help with diagnosis. > But fair enough. I'll post a patch documenting that IPv6 tables are > required. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
