Aha! Here's the message that I couldn't find! I accidentally sent it
from my personal email address, and it showed up only in my personal
inbox (and not in the libvirt folder).
Anyway, as I said in the reply to 0/8 - completely disregard what I said
here. Again, I have *no idea* what I thought I saw and how I
misunderstood it so badly :-/
On 9/16/24 12:02 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 9/3/24 10:36 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
Once networkUpdateState() identifies a dead network it should clean up
after it as well.
Resolves: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-50968
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/network/bridge_driver.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver.c b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
index e507dcd4c5c9..ebdb39d0743b 100644
--- a/src/network/bridge_driver.c
+++ b/src/network/bridge_driver.c
@@ -510,6 +510,12 @@ networkUpdateState(virNetworkObj *obj,
virNetworkObjSetDnsmasqPid(obj, dnsmasqPid);
}
+ /* Clean up after networks which were active but we have found
out they are
+ * actually down */
+ if (!virNetworkObjIsActive(obj)) {
+ networkShutdownNetwork(driver, obj);
+ }
+
The good part of this is that it will properly/completely clean up the
remnants of any network that has somehow failed (e.g. the bridge device
gets deleted by someone else).
The bad part is that it means we end up calling all of the cleanup stuff
(e.g. birNetDevBandwidthClear(), deleting the bridge device) even for
networks that *were* properly shutdown (and so shouldn't have any of
that stuff done). Aside from taking extra time (especially if someone
has dozen's of inactive networks), this could be problematic if, for
example, someone has two virtual networks that they've hand-configured
to use the same bridge device (but obey their own policy to never start
both at the same time). I *think* calling networkShutdownNetwork on the
inactive network then would end up deleting the bridge device that's in
use by the active network. (Arguably it's not a good idea to have
configs like that when you could just use different bridge names for
each, but I can think of at least one esoteric situation where someone
might want to do it).
Maybe this could be solved by having 3 states instead of 2 -
"active" (should be working), "inactive" (definitely confirmed down, all
teardown completed), and "zombie" (something has gone wrong with the
network, but it hasn't been completely destroyed yet). Then you would
only go ahead with the Shutdown if the network was "active" or "zombie",
but skip it if the network was "inactive". Or something like that.
return 0;
}
