Re: [libvirt PATCH 00/28] native support for nftables in virtual network driver

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

 



On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:10:08PM GMT, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>   Laine Stump wrote:
>
> > This patch series enables libvirt to use nftables rules rather than
> > iptables *when setting up virtual networks* (it does *not* add
> > nftables support to the nwfilter driver). It accomplishes this by
> > abstracting several iptables functions (from viriptables.[ch] called
> > by the virtual network driver into a rudimentary "virNetfilter API"
> > (in virnetfilter.[ch], having the virtual network driver call the
> > virNetFilter API rather than calling the existing iptables functions
> > directly, and then finally adding an equivalent virNftables backend
> > that can be used instead of iptables (selected manually via a
> > network.conf setting, or automatically if iptables isn't found on the
> > host).
>
> [resend to a proper list]
>
> Hi,
>
> Apparently, I'm late to the discussion.
>
> I noticed that now I cannot use the bridge driver on FreeBSD as it's
> failing to initialize both iptables and nftables backends (which is
> expect).
>
> What would be a good way to address that? I see at least two options:
>
> 1. Add a Noop firewall driver
> 2. Implement a "real" FreeBSD driver based either on pf or ipfw (that's
> been on my TODO list forever, but I somehow got stuck on the very first
> step on choosing between pf and ipfw). This obviously will take much
> more time.
>
> Maybe there are other options I'm missing.
>
> What do you think?

If I understand correctly, the new behavior might cause problems on
macOS too, see [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if the other BSDs were
similarly affected.

I wonder how things could work before if the iptables backend is not
functional. Is it possible that we used to ignore failures to
initialize the backend, but now we consider them fatal instead?

A proper platform-specific backend would obviously be the right
approach in the long run, but the priority should be restoring the
previous status quo. A noop backend might be the answer, but honestly
I just don't understand enough about networking to know for sure. I
thought that these firewall rules were necessary in order to give
network access to VMs, but if FreeBSD has been doing fine without
iptables so far clearly that's not the case?


[1] https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/issues/642
-- 
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux