Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 3/3] network: Taint networks that are using hook script

On 08.02.2014 11:51, Laine Stump wrote: >On 02/07/2014 10:52 PM, Antoni Segura Puimedon wrote: >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Laine Stump" <laine(a)laine.org&gt; >>>To: libvir-list(a)redhat.com >>>Cc: "Michal Privoznik" <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 1:17:10 PM >>>Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 3/3] network: Taint networks that are using hook script >>> >>>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. >>Actually I kind of like the option (2). I think it could make a lot of sense >>that the hook would be able to add an attribute to the network definition >>xml, e.g. <bandwidth hooked="1"> so that libvirt would know that that part >>has been taken care of by the hook. Of course, it might be a bad idea for >>libvirt to blindly accept any kind of modification, but something like what >>I propose does not seem eminently dangerous. > >The reason I don't like option (2) is that it requires trusting the hook >to leave its mark if it modifies anything, and that's exactly why we >want to taint the networks that call a hook - because we don't/can't >trust the hook. > >I wonder if there might be some way to allow a hook to add information >to the network's xml in some well-defined location, though. This >information would not be used/trusted by libvirt at all, but would only >be there, for example, so that a later "stop/unplug" hook could retrieve >it, rather than being required to keep its state externally. > Well, we may make the hook script to return the network xml that libvirt will parse and startup. For example: 1) network with <bandwidth/> is about to start. The network XML is passed to the script. 2) The script sees <network> ... <bandwidth/> ... </network> and do all the tc magic. Then it produces the same XML minus <bandwidth/> 3) Libvirt parses the <network> ... </network> without the bandwidth knowing that the script has taken care of it. If it doesn't we may error out because <bandwidth/> is not supported yet (assuming the right type of network for this little example). The whole network startup process would be aborted then. On the other hand, if we go this way (and in some sense even if we don't), we are going to need <metadata/> for the networks so users may set some attributes that are unknown to libvirt but allows the script to make better decisions.