On 04/22/2016 10:14 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 04/22/2016 09:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 04/22/2016 09:18 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 17:06 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
And the 'ip' tool. There isn't much benefit to checking this at configure time when we have infrastructure nowadays for looking up binaries in the PATH https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661262 --- configure.ac | 12 ------ src/util/virfirewall.c | 18 +++++---- src/util/virnetdev.c | 6 +-- tests/virfirewalltest.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 4 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) I haven't tried running this so I'm probably missing something, but...
@@ -182,17 +182,19 @@ virFirewallValidateBackend(virFirewallBackend backend) if (backend == VIR_FIREWALL_BACKEND_DIRECT) { const char *commands[] = { - IPTABLES_PATH, IP6TABLES_PATH, EBTABLES_PATH + "iptables", "ip6tables", "ebtables" }; size_t i; for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_CARDINALITY(commands); i++) { - if (!virFileIsExecutable(commands[i])) { + char *path = virFindFileInPath(commands[i]); + if (!path) { virReportSystemError(errno, _("direct firewall backend requested, but %s is not available"), commands[i]); return -1; } + VIR_FREE(path); } VIR_DEBUG("found iptables/ip6tables/ebtables, using direct backend"); } ... how is this fixing the issue reported above?
Oh, hmm, maybe it doesn't, sorry. I was misreading; I thought the report was 'build libvirtd without iptables, install it later, libvirt won't work'.
AFAICT you just changed it to perform a filesystem lookup instead of relying on the information obtained at configure time. And you removed the check on the file being executable, which is probably not a good idea? Judging from the error message it seems like virFileIsExecutable was just a surrogate for access(path, F_OK), but I can re add it. As long as someone at least thinks this is a worthwhile patch otherwise
I think it's worthwhile; even though the number of self-builders is fairly low, they do take time sorting out on IRC. I agree with Andrea that the virFileIsExecutable call should remain in, since you can never count on one of these self-built systems to have *anything* setup sanely :-P
Once this change is made, I think we can remove all the "BuildRequires: (ebtables/iptables/iptables-ipv6)" from the specfile (as long as there is no other odd usage of them in configure.ac)
Okay I'll look into it Thanks, Cole