Bug 1777140

Summary:	Undercloud has iptables rule to allow traffic for horizon, which is not deployed
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	Takashi Kajinami <tkajinam>
Component:	instack-undercloud	Assignee:	Takashi Kajinami <tkajinam>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Arik Chernetsky <achernet>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	13.0 (Queens)	CC:	apetrich, aschultz, mburns, ramishra
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged, ZStream
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	instack-undercloud-8.4.9-4.el7ost	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-03-10 11:23:19 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Takashi Kajinami 2019-11-27 02:07:30 UTC

Description of problem:

When we install undercloud by 'openstack undercloud install',
we see that the undercloud node has the following rule in iptables.
~~~
-A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -m state --state NEW -m comment --comment "126 horizon ipv4" -j ACCEPT
~~~

However, we don't have Horizon deployed/configured in undercloud node,
which means that this iptables rule is useless.
~~~
[stack@undercloud-0 ~]$ rpm -qa | grep horizon
puppet-horizon-12.4.0-1.el7ost.noarch
[stack@undercloud-0 ~]$ 
~~~

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install undercloud 
2. See iptables-save to see configured rules

Actual results:
iptables-save has an ACCEPT rule about tcp/80 and tcp/443, which is used for horizon

Expected results:
iptables-save  doesn't have an ACCEPT rules about tcp/80 and tcp/443, which is used for horizon


Additional info:

Comment 1 Takashi Kajinami 2019-11-27 02:10:12 UTC

I proposed a possible fix[1] for stable/rocky.

[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/696215/

However, I'm not sure whether I'm doing the correct thing
because I don't understand the reason why we have horizon configuration there.
(It seems that we had horizon deployed in undercloud node in old releases?)

It would be nice if I can ask eng to have a look about that.

Comment 4 errata-xmlrpc 2020-03-10 11:23:19 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:0760