2:08 p.m.
Hi,
I'm new to libvirt but not a complete neophite.
I'm using libvirt and kvm in ubuntu with "vmbuilder".
I'm creating a couple of VMs inside a host that is directly connected to
internet with a public routeable address. Since I only have one public
address, I won't use bridging.
I'm using shorewall (www.shorewall.net) to configure my iptables rules.
I intend to use DNAT to route specific ports in the host to one or other VM.
With standard masquerading, I give the VMs access to the outside world.
At first I used the 'default' network (with a different rfc1918
network)... everything was kinda working until I rebooted the host... at
that point I lost connectivity between the outside world and the VMs.
From inside the host I had no trouble connecting to the VMs.
If I restarted shorewall (which actually cleans all iptables rules and
regenerate them according to its configuration) everything works fine.
After sending a report and some debugging in the shorewall mailing list,
it was clear that libvirt was adding rules to iptables.
After reading a bit
(http://libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html#examplesPrivate) I created a new
network called "isolated". I stopped default (and disabled its
autostart), and defined and started isolated.
This is the content of isolated.xml:
<network>
<name>isolated</name>
<uuid>51cffbcc-88f5-4edc-a81c-1765c1045691</uuid>
<bridge name='virbr%d' stp='on' forwardDelay='0' />
<ip address='10.3.14.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'>
<dhcp>
<range start='10.3.14.128' end='10.3.14.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
</network>
I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
Feel free to ask for any data that I didn't send here.
TIA.
--
Mariano Absatz - "El Baby"
el.baby(a)gmail.com
www.clueless.com.ar
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes
that can be made in a very narrow field.
Niels Bohr
Danish physicist (1885 - 1962)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
6:24 a.m.
I'm sorry... is this not the right place to ask this kind of
questions? Is there another more user-oriented list or forum?
TIA
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 16:08, Mariano Absatz <el.baby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm new to libvirt but not a complete neophite.
I'm using libvirt and kvm in ubuntu with "vmbuilder".
I'm creating a couple of VMs inside a host that is directly connected to
internet with a public routeable address. Since I only have one public
address, I won't use bridging.
I'm using shorewall (www.shorewall.net) to configure my iptables rules.
I intend to use DNAT to route specific ports in the host to one or other VM.
With standard masquerading, I give the VMs access to the outside world.
At first I used the 'default' network (with a different rfc1918 network)...
everything was kinda working until I rebooted the host... at that point I
lost connectivity between the outside world and the VMs. From inside the
host I had no trouble connecting to the VMs.
If I restarted shorewall (which actually cleans all iptables rules and
regenerate them according to its configuration) everything works fine. After
sending a report and some debugging in the shorewall mailing list, it was
clear that libvirt was adding rules to iptables.
After reading a bit (http://libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html#examplesPrivate)
I created a new network called "isolated". I stopped default (and disabled
its autostart), and defined and started isolated.
This is the content of isolated.xml:
<network>
<name>isolated</name>
<uuid>51cffbcc-88f5-4edc-a81c-1765c1045691</uuid>
<bridge name='virbr%d' stp='on' forwardDelay='0' />
<ip address='10.3.14.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'>
<dhcp>
<range start='10.3.14.128' end='10.3.14.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
</network>
I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep being
added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
Feel free to ask for any data that I didn't send here.
TIA.
--
Mariano Absatz - El Baby
www.clueless.com.ar
#########################
"An archaeologist is the best husband a woman can have. The older she
gets the more intereste...
7:41 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
At first I used the 'default' network (with a different
rfc1918
network)... everything was kinda working until I rebooted the host... at
that point I lost connectivity between the outside world and the VMs.
From inside the host I had no trouble connecting to the VMs.
If I restarted shorewall (which actually cleans all iptables rules and
regenerate them according to its configuration) everything works fine.
After sending a report and some debugging in the shorewall mailing list,
it was clear that libvirt was adding rules to iptables.
Yes, the libvirt virtual network capability adds iptables to control
traffic to/from the virtual network.
After reading a bit
(http://libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html#examplesPrivate) I created a new
network called "isolated". I stopped default (and disabled its
autostart), and defined and started isolated.
This is the content of isolated.xml:
<network>
<name>isolated</name>
<uuid>51cffbcc-88f5-4edc-a81c-1765c1045691</uuid>
<bridge name='virbr%d' stp='on' forwardDelay='0' />
<ip address='10.3.14.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'>
<dhcp>
<range start='10.3.14.128' end='10.3.14.254' />
</dhcp>
</ip>
</network>
I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
network.
If this is a problem, then the best bet is to not use the virtual
network capability. Instead create a bridge device yourself using
distro network scripts, and do whatever routing/firewalling setup
you need for shorwall to work
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
3:16 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> [...]
> I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
> being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
>
> Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
network.
Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if the
existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
behind it's back.
What kind of iptables rules do you need to install?
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
4:59 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> > [...]
> > I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
> > being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
> >
> > Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
>
> No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
> virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
> network.
Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if the
existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
behind it's back.
We have a similar issue with the Fedora equivalent of SuSSfirewall, and
it provides a mechanism for us to register the set of rules we want, so
when it is re-run, it re-adds our rules.
As a failsafe, sending SIGHUP to libvirtd will make it re-add its rules
so if there's some post-config hook for SuSEfirewall, it could be made
to SIGHUP the libvirtd daemon.
What kind of iptables rules do you need to install?
It depends on the particular config, but it is adding sets of rules
against the IP range & bridge device config for the interface we add
to allow / disallow forwarding of traffic.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
7:36 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
> > > being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
> > >
> > > Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
> >
> > No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
> > virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
> > network.
>
> Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if the
> existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
> interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
> behind it's back.
We have a similar issue with the Fedora equivalent of SuSSfirewall, and
it provides a mechanism for us to register the set of rules we want, so
when it is re-run, it re-adds our rules.
SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
1:48 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:36 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
How would that be done ? I don't know of any tool that could do that,
especially given the large number of existing firewall mgmt tools out
there (s-c-firewall, SuSEfirewall2, whatever Debian/Ubuntu have,
shorewall, pyroman, ...)
David
4:07 a.m.
David Lutterkort wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:36 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
> dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
> I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
> firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
> rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
How would that be done ? I don't know of any tool that could do that,
Such a mechanism doesn't exist yet. That doesn't mean it can't be
implemented in the future.
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
3:48 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
> > > > being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
> > >
> > > No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
> > > virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
> > > network.
> >
> > Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if the
> > existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
> > interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
> > behind it's back.
>
> We have a similar issue with the Fedora equivalent of SuSSfirewall, and
> it provides a mechanism for us to register the set of rules we want, so
> when it is re-run, it re-adds our rules.
SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
I don't much like it either, but currently there isn't any other viable
way to provide good network connectivity out of the box, with zero
configuration required by the user. In the perfect world we could
delegate setup to NetworkManager, and indeed NM's latest connection
sharing capabilities does very similar things with IPtables that
libvirt does - we worked with the NM developers to make sure our
stuff was compatible. So there's potentiall for more work with NM if
someone's interested in pursuing that direction
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
4:18 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> > > Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules
keep
> > > > > being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
> > > >
> > > > No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
> > > > virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
> > > > network.
> > >
> > > Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if
the
> > > existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
> > > interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
> > > behind it's back.
> >
> > We have a similar issue with the Fedora equivalent of SuSSfirewall, and
> > it provides a mechanism for us to register the set of rules we want, so
> > when it is re-run, it re-adds our rules.
>
> SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
> dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
> I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
> firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
> rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
I don't much like it either, but currently there isn't any other viable
way to provide good network connectivity out of the box, with zero
configuration required by the user.
The idea of making firewalls magically do the right thing without
any input from the user just doesn't work out. Anyways, I'm not
denying that there currently is no way to have firewall rules
adjusted without going low level and calling iptables yourself.
That's why I'm interested in what kind of rules you need for what
purpose. Maybe a better way to interface with SuSEfirewall2 springs
into my mind then. Or maybe not, who knows :-)
In the perfect world we could
delegate setup to NetworkManager, and indeed NM's latest connection
sharing capabilities does very similar things with IPtables that
libvirt does
*shudder* that's even more scary and doesn't belong there either.
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
8:53 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
>>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
>>>>> being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
>>>> No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
>>>> virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
>>>> network.
>>> Messing with iptables rules isn't guaranteed to work either. Esp if the
>>> existing firewall is re-run. SuSEfirewall2 for example runs when
>>> interfaces come or go so it will kill any rules that someone added
>>> behind it's back.
>> We have a similar issue with the Fedora equivalent of SuSSfirewall, and
>> it provides a mechanism for us to register the set of rules we want, so
>> when it is re-run, it re-adds our rules.
> SuSEfirewall2 does not have such a mechanism and TBH I pretty much
> dislike the idea of allowing applications to inject arbitrary rules.
> I'd prefer some higher level abstraction so it's left to the
> firewall to decide how to translate the request into actual iptables
> rules (or whatever else technology is used in the background).
I don't much like it either, but currently there isn't any other viable
way to provide good network connectivity out of the box, with zero
configuration required by the user. In the perfect world we could
delegate setup to NetworkManager, and indeed NM's latest connection
sharing capabilities does very similar things with IPtables that
libvirt does - we worked with the NM developers to make sure our
stuff was compatible. So there's potentiall for more work with NM if
someone's interested in pursuing that direction
Daniel
Can you please define the requirements for a firewall interface for libvirt?
Thomas
4:10 p.m.
(sorry, Daniel... I had only answered you instead of copying the list also)
Daniel P. Berrange escribió el 01/04/09 09:41:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 04:08:24PM -0300, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> At first I used the 'default' network (with a different rfc1918
> network)... everything was kinda working until I rebooted the host... at
> that point I lost connectivity between the outside world and the VMs.
> From inside the host I had no trouble connecting to the VMs.
>
> If I restarted shorewall (which actually cleans all iptables rules and
> regenerate them according to its configuration) everything works fine.
> After sending a report and some debugging in the shorewall mailing list,
> it was clear that libvirt was adding rules to iptables.
>
Yes, the libvirt virtual network capability adds iptables to control
traffic to/from the virtual network.
> After reading a bit
> (http://libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html#examplesPrivate) I created a new
> network called "isolated". I stopped default (and disabled its
> autostart), and defined and started isolated.
>
> This is the content of isolated.xml:
> <network>
> <name>isolated</name>
> <uuid>51cffbcc-88f5-4edc-a81c-1765c1045691</uuid>
> <bridge name='virbr%d' stp='on' forwardDelay='0' />
> <ip address='10.3.14.1' netmask='255.255.255.0'>
> <dhcp>
> <range start='10.3.14.128' end='10.3.14.254' />
> </dhcp>
> </ip>
> </network>
>
> I modified my VMs to use isolated rather than default, but rules keep
> being added to iptables when libvirt-bin is started.
>
> Is there a way to convince libvirt not to add these rules?
>
No, libvirt needs to add the rules here because otherwise the guest
virtual network would not be guarenteed to be isolated from the host
network.
If this is a problem, then the best bet is to not use the virtual
network capability. Instead create a bridge device yourself using
distro network scripts, and do whatever routing/firewalling setup
you need for shorwall to work
Daniel
I see.. so I can't just ask libvirt to create the bridge for me and not
touch iptables rules... I chose "isolated" just hoping that would be
the way of preventing the addition of iptables rules...
The problem at this time is that, other than the rules I see libvirt
adds are conflicting with my rules (since they are inserted at the top
of INPUT and FORWARD before mine):
Chain INPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
0 0 ACCEPT udp -- vnet0 * 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> udp dpt:53
0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- vnet0 * 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> tcp dpt:53
0 0 ACCEPT udp -- vnet0 * 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> udp dpt:67
0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- vnet0 * 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> tcp dpt:67
Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
- 0 0 ACCEPT all -- vnet0 vnet0 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
- 0 0 REJECT all -- * vnet0 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
- 0 0 REJECT all -- vnet0 * 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0>
0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
Well... for the time being, I think I'll add a "shorewall restart" at
the end of rc.local which will kill these rules and leave only the ones
that shorewall generates...
--
Mariano Absatz - "El Baby"
el.baby(a)gmail.com
www.clueless.com.ar
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some
people appear bright until you hear them speak.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
5513
days inactive
5528
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
David Lutterkort -
Ludwig Nussel -
Mariano Absatz -
Thomas Woerner