On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 05:38:51PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 7/17/19 12:49 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 7/14/19 8:03 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> There's several unresolved RFEs for the <network> bridge
>> driver that are essentially requests to add XML wrappers
>> for underlying dnsmasq options.
>>
>> This series adds a dnsmasq xmlns namespace for <network>
>> XML that allows passing option strings directly to the
>> generated dnsmasq config file. It will allow motivated
>> users to work around libvirt until those types of RFEs
>> are properly implemented.
>
>
> This all looks like a reasonable facsimile of the qemu:commandline
> stuff, and it worked in my tests (including not creating any problems
> with all the existing networks I have on my test system).
>
>
> My one reservation would be that it will tend to discourage adding
> *supported* methods of configuring things that people will instead use
> this backdoor to implement. But on the other hand, it makes it possible
> to do new things without needing to wait for an officially supported
> method (which could take a very long time, or simply never happen, as
> we've seen).
>
>
> (Actually I for some reason thought we already *had* support for the
> specific example you used - CNAME records. I guess I had lumped it in
> with SRV and TXT records in my memory. It really should be
> straightforward to do, and should still be done, but that shouldn't stop
> this patch series from going in).
>
>
> This is for the entire series:
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Laine Stump <laine(a)laine.org>
Thanks, I've pushed this now.
Regarding the bigger point, I think it's worth considering whether we
should aim to expose every requested dnsmasq option as official XML or
not. We effectively have one network driver; there's an impl for vbox
and esx but they seem very basic. It doesn't look like we are going to
have another backend impl any time soon.
I wouldn't rule it out. I can't remember where it was, but a few months
ago I had a discussion with some folks precisely about replacing dnsmasq
with new daemon(s). Primarily the purpose would getting a more secure
solution modern solution written in a memory safe language.
Unless the requested option has some specific reason to be
represented
in libvirt XML, like if another part of libvirt may need/want to
programmatically act on that data for some reason, maybe it's okay to
say that dnsmasq passthrough is the solution. Some examples might be
* dhcp-option:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666556
* auth-zone:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690943
* This bug has a lot of mentioned options:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824573
Most of the stuff across these bugs is not really dnsmasq specific.
It would be applicable to any DNS/DHCP service, so its just a matter
of expressing it sensibly in the XML, so you're not tied to dnsmasq
specific syntax.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|