On 6/12/24 6:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 03:27:24AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:57:15AM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 01:54:47AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
Is there much of a difference between having an explicit noop backend
that is checked for availability after all other ones, and simply not
failing to initialize the driver if a backend can't be found?
I actually sent a patch for the latter last night
Awesome, thanks!
I'm still unclear on how networking on FreeBSD could work at all
until now. Aren't the iptables rules needed for guest connectivity?
Or did I misunderstand their purpose?
It wouldn't have worked, but the problem is that we now kill the
entire libvirtd startup, instead of successfully starting a (broken)
network driver. Both are broken, but now the brokenness has spread
to the bits that do matter.
I get that, it's just that I'd be extremely surprised to learn that
guest network connectivity hasn't worked on FreeBSD all this time.
Surely that can't be right! Roman, what am I missing?
This is only the libvirt virtual network backend. I presume BSD hosted
guests could just use one of the other network backend options.
Based on the wording of Roman's initial message, I wondered if possibly
people had been using the virtual network driver with <forward
mode='open'/> - this wouldn't ever call any firewall functions, so it
should succeed. I'm pretty sure none of the other network types are
supported on BSD (macvtap/direct, or pools of SRIOV VFs used via VFIO
device assignment).
(I had asked about this in a reply night before last, but I think it
wasn't seen by anyone because I replied to his first message that was
accidentally sent to the old list and I'd iniially just hit reply
(sending my reply to the old list too), then re-sent the message to the
new list, but I think my email client changed the In-Reply-To: so it
wasn't properly threaded and appeared separate from the rest of the thread.)
