On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Laine Stump wrote:
On 02/05/2014 12:11 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Basically, the idea is copied from domain code, where tainting
> exists for a while. Currently, only one taint reason exists -
> VIR_NETWORK_TAINT_HOOK to mark those networks which caused invoking
> of hook script.
What's missing here is that the network status XML doesn't include a
<taint> element.
Also, I think if a network is tainted, and domain that connects to that
network should be tainted as well.
Of course what would make this more useful would be if would could
determine when a hook script actually *did* something for a particular
network/interface (since presumably people are usually going to write
their network hook scripts to only take action for particular networks
and/or domains, not for *all* networks). I don't know that there's a way
to do that without either 1) having a different hook script for each
network, or 2) trusting the hook script to return some sort of status
indicating whether or not it did anything. Obviously (2) is not a good
idea, but we may want to think about (1) in the future (for qemu and lxc
hook scripts as well) - instead of just looking for
/etc/libvirt/hook/network, we could first look for
/etc/libvirt/hook/network.${netname} and exec that instead if found (or
in addition). But I think that can be deferred until later.
I don't think we should try to second guess what the hook script
is doing. You are basically trying to solve the halting problem
there which is not a winning proposition.
ACK if you add the <taint> element to the network status XML,
and taint
the domain any time it uses a tainted network.
I think tainting the domain is probably overkill here.
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|