[libvirt] Proposal: no dnsmasq (no dhcp and no dns) and no radvd option

Sun Nov 25 13:25:30 UTC 2012

On 11/24/2012 04:19 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 02:18 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 05:29 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2012 02:36 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>>>> Laine mentioned something yesterday that got me to thinking: being
>>>>> able to specify that dnsmasq is not to be started for an interface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me expand that by saying that libvirt would not start dnsmasq for
>>>>> either dns or dhcp and also would not start radvd.  However, the IPv4
>>>>> and IPv6 gateway addresses would be defined on the virtual network
>>>>> interface and the "usual" iptables and ip6tables rules would be in
>>>> force.
>>>>> This would allow a user to configure dnsmasq to meet any user desires
>>>>> or use something completely different instead of dnsmasq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Questions:  Useful?  Worth the time and effort?
>>> That was already determined before I mentioned it to you - it's been
>>> requested several times, and I've told some people it was "going to
>>> happen", although didn't say when:-).
>>>
>> OK, color this "almost done" (doc and schemas need updating).
>>
>> Three new parameters are added:
>>        <network disableDnsmasq='yes'  logDnsQueries='yes' logDhcp='yes' >
> Don't refer to dnsmasq specifically in the XML unless it's something
> that is unique to dnsmasq (and then we should seriously consider  if
> we're thinking about it the right way before adding it). The intent is
> that the XML should describe the desired configuration in a manner high
> level enough that a new driver using different backend components would
> be able to use the same XML attributes and arrive at similar
> functionality. For example, there is active work right now to support
> libvirt's server side on FreeBSD, and they may decide that they want to
> implement their networks using different implementations of DNS and dhcp
> servers (they will already need to do something different in place of
> Linux host brdges and iptables, so it will have to be a completely new
> driver anyway).
>
> Obviously there are cases where something specific to the backend needs
> to be in the XML; for example the virtio-net drivers can specify <driver
> name='qemu' ...> and in that case can have an option ioeventfd and
> event_idx options which would probably be meaningless to any netdev
> driver for another hypervisor, but we aim to keep that to a minimum, and
> use it only when the characteristic described really is unique to
> particular backend).
>
> (At any rate, it seems reasonable to me that someone may want us to
> provide a dhcp server but no dns server. Yes, this also implies that we
> should have a way in the config to feed in the address of an alternative
> DNS server ("--dhcp-option=option:dns-server,x.x.x.x" and
> "--dhcp-option=option6:dnsserver,xxxx::xxxx") to send to dhcp clients
> when they've disabled dnsmasq's own dns server (in case you hadn't found
> it in the manpage yet - you can run dnsmasq with no dns server by adding
> "--port=0" to the commandline). As soon as I hit send on this, I'm going
> to type up a short mail asking for comments on how to add support for
> any standard dhcp option.
>
> As for the other two - any reason why you used "logDnsQueries" instead
> of "logDns"? Also, do you think we might want the ability to specify a
> level in the future? (I guess if we did, that could coexist with yes|no).
>
> And while we're on the topic of logging: one thing that's bothered me a
> lot, and we've had other people complain about it as well, is that every
> single DHCP lease renewal results in a message to /var/log/messages, and
> there doesn't seem to be any way to suppress it. Is that correct?

OK, I had not realized that it was possible to not have dns while 
continuing to do dhcp.  So, it now becomes disableDns="yes" which 
results in --port=0 being passed to dnsmasq.  For completeness, I 
suggest that disableDhcp="yes" and disableRA="yes" be added.

I have changed my mind and will make it logDns=, logDhcp= and (again for 
completeness) logRA= ... this last one may require a small dnsmasq update.

However, I still like the idea of not starting anything and, as I state 
below, you can start dnsmasq even if it is configured to do nothing.  
Therefore, I propose adding "disableDaemons=" which is not specific to 
any package but would mean not to start either dnsmasq or radvd 
regardless of whether or not they would be started.

Lease renewal messages should not be that frequent it is probably a 
"small matter of programming" to get an option to suppress them ... if 
Simon Kelley would add that.

Speaking of logging, if you do not like the lease renewal messages, then 
you will have a bigger problem with the "RTR-ADVERT" messages that 
dnsmasq issues every 3//4/5 seconds for every started interface.  I have 
submitted a "tiny" patch to dnsmasq which ties issuing this message to 
log-dhcp being enabled.
>
>> If nothing is specified, then the default is no, no, no so that things
>> work as they do now.  Currently, if the boolean value is 'no' or
>> false, then that parameter is not written out.  I could easily change
>> that depending on what others want to do.
>>
>> Laine, I changed this to be disableDnsmasq because that is the real
>> result.  If this is specified, then starting radvd will also be
>> suppressed.  It is as if no IPv4 or IPv6 addresses were specified.
>> However, the iptables and ip6tables rules will remain the same since
>> it is assumed that gateway addresses will be specified.
> Actually that's yet another switch that we need to add - the ability to
> suppress all iptables rules for a particular network (unless it is in
> NAT mode, in which case it makes no sense, because it's the difference
> in rules that changes it from mode='route' to mode='nat'). Perhaps it
> could be something like filter='none|open|restricted', although I don't
> know if that's descriptive enough - even without getting into specific
> protocols (which I don't think should be done - at that point they
> should really be using a guest-specific filterref) you might still want
> to know if there should be any rules at all, allow everything, allow
> outgoing sessions but not incoming, allow inter-guest traffic but not
> incoming from the outside, allow nothing (all of these could be
> overridden by a particular guest's filterref)
Easy enough to implement but what is the purpose.  If there are no rules 
at all (and perhaps no gateway addresses), then the interface will not 
work for guest-to-guest communications either.  But wait, if there are 
no rules at all the the "default" "--reject-with icmp-port-unreachable" 
will not be there either so maybe things will work.  However, I thought 
that filters were specified as part of the <interface> definition, not 
the <network> definition.

So, where should this be handled?  It makes some sense to me that for 
the types of networks src/network/bridge_driver.c handles, maybe 
<network> is more appropriate.
>
>> I have scratched an itch of mine by providing a way to specify that
>> dns-queries and dhcp activity should be logged and that this is
>> specified separately for each virtual network interface.
>>
>> Dan suggested that a user might still want to run dnsmasq's dns
>> service even if no IP addresses are specified.  However, in that case
>> I am not sure what dnsmasq is suppose to monitor for queries ... it
>> needs some kind of address or we will have the problems which the
>> bind-dynamic update is suppose to fix.
>
> Yeah, I didn't understand that either - If the bridge has no IP address,
> there's no target IP for a DNS request to be sent to. I just assumed he
> was thinking of something else.
Believe it or not, it is possible to start dnsmasq on an interface which 
has no gateway addresses and --port=0 so that there no dns ... it runs 
and appears to do nothing.  Again, what purpose is there to starting 
dnsmasq in this situation?
>
>
>> I have not integrated this with the bind-dynamic update but plan to
>> before I submit it.  I will be submitting this patch with the IPV6
>> enhancement, DHCPv6, etc. series since it is yet again messing with
>> the same code.
>>
>> If any of the series get rejected rather than accepted, it will not be
>> too much of a problem to rework them.
>
One last question.  Considering all of these various new xml 
parameters/attributes, should they all be on the <network> statement, 
only part of them on <network> and others on a (perhaps) a <logging> 
defintion, or maybe an <options> statement.

Comments? Suggesting?

Gene