Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] remote: fix systemd IP socket activation with virtproxyd

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:42:57AM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > We recently forbid the use of --listen with socket activation: > > > > commit 3a6a725b8f575890ee6c151ad1f46ea0ceea1f3b > > Author: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Date: Thu Aug 22 14:52:16 2019 +0100 > > > > remote: forbid the --listen arg when systemd socket activation > > > > In this change we forgot that virtproxyd doesn't have a --listen > > parameter, and instead behaves as if it was always present. Thus > > when systemd socket activation is present, we must disable this > > built-in default > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; > > --- > > src/remote/remote_daemon.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/remote/remote_daemon.c b/src/remote/remote_daemon.c > > index 7195ac9218..43409edd24 100644 > > --- a/src/remote/remote_daemon.c > > +++ b/src/remote/remote_daemon.c > > @@ -423,11 +423,20 @@ daemonSetupNetworking(virNetServerPtr srv, > > return -1; > > > > #ifdef WITH_IP > > +# ifdef (LIBVIRTD > > ^fails to compile: > s/(// Sigh, clearly I didn't test :-( > > > if (act && ipsock) { > > VIR_ERROR(_("--listen parameter not permitted with systemd activation " > > "sockets, see 'man libvirtd' for further guidance")); > > return -1; > > } > > +# else /* ! LIBVIRTD */ > > + /* We don't have a --listen arg with virtproxyd, we're just > > + * hardcoded to assume --listen. Thus with systemd we must > > + * change that default > > + */ > > + if (act) > > + ipsock = 0; > > I'm a bit confused with this bit wrt to what actually happens later in the > code. Basically this @ipsock is only relevant up until the point where we start > registering services listening for traffic e.g.virNetServerAddServiceTCP (this > is one is easier as an example). If I look at the condition: > > if (((ipsock && config->listen_tcp) || act) ... > > why does it even matter that we clear ipsock when socket activation is enabled? > The condition is true regardless of @ipsock and it's also not populated further > into the function being called unlike @act, so this bit is making me confused, > so what exactly is happening if we don't clear @ipsock with virtproxyd? Currently there are *no* ill effects if we don't clear @ipsock. The important bit of the patch is simply avoiding the VIR_ERROR in the first part of the ifdef. I chose to clear @ipsock, to reduce chance of suprises later if we refactor again.