[libvirt] [PATCH] (updated) additional parameters needed for dnsmasq

[Laine Stump]

On 09/05/2012 07:55 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 11:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 11:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>> On 08/22/2012 10:59 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>>>> As I said in a previous message, dnsmasq is forwarding a number of
>>>>> queries upstream that should not be done.  There still remains an MX
>>>>> query for a plain name with no domain specified that will be
>>>>> forwarded
>>>>> is dnsmasq has --domain=xxx  --local=/xxx/ specified. This does not
>>>>> happen with no domain name and --local=// ... not a libvirt problem.
>>>>>
>>>> ACK and pushed with the above tweak, and with adding you to AUTHORS
>>>> (let
>>>> us know if you prefer any other spelling or email address; the file is
>>>> in UTF-8).
>>> Oh, and now that I've already pushed, I have a high-level question:
>>> what
>>> is the minimum version of 'dnsmasq' that supports the command-line
>>> syntax that this patch introduces?
>>>
>>> +--local=// --domain-needed --filterwin2k \
>>>
>>> If older dnsmasq doesn't recognize --local=// or the new
>>> --domain-needed
>>> or --filterwin2k options, then we either need to make this code
>>> conditional based on probing 'dnsmasq --help' at startup, or else
>>> change
>>> the spec file to require a larger minimum version of dnsmasq (we
>>> already
>>> require 2.41 for other reasons).
>> Just as I feared, we introduced a regression:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854137
>>
>> Apparently, --filterwin2k disables features needed by Windows guests.
>> Gene, what is the benefit vs. cost of adding this flag?  I'm trying to
>> figure out whether we need to expose it as something user-configurable,
>> or whether we should just revert back to the pre-patch version that did
>> not supply that option.
>>
> I already had some second thoughts about --filterwin2k but you had
> pushed it.  "--filterwin2k" should be removed.

Yes, as rare as dialup lines are these days, I think it's highly
unlikely that anyone running a virt host will be connected to the rest
of the network in a way which will require bringing up a dialup network
connection in order to send a packet to a domain controller. So, I don't
think we should clutter the XML with such a specific option that will in
all likelyhood never be used.