Hide Forgot
Description of the problem: Requesting the patch 912d170f87b3d147bfde987249a727f7a7c7f1d7 to be applied to RHEL 6.1 http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=912d170f87b3d147bfde987249a727f7a7c7f1d7 Packets not accepted by a VM's nwfilter configuration could not be rejected with an ICMP message sent back to the originator but could only be dropped. To verify that this patch was applied: Assuming an interface description like this one containing a line <filterref filter='acl-fw'/> <interface type='bridge'> <source bridge='virbr0'/> <target dev='vnet0'/> <model type='virtio'/> <filterref filter='acl-fw'/> </interface> and a nwfilter like this one: <filter name='acl-fw' chain='root'> <rule action='reject' direction='in' priority='400'> <all/> </rule> </filter> Once the VM has been started and has an interface called 'vnet0', the command iptables -L FO-vnet0 -n should return the following output: iptables -L FI-vnet0 Chain FI-vnet0 (1 references) target prot opt source destination REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Previous versions of libvirt would simply discard the <rule...> line in the XML since 'reject' was not known.
Once the build is available I can run the libvirt-tck test cases against it. Thanks. Stefan
This patch applied cleanly to RHEL6.1 libvirt, and has been posted to rhvirt-patches, and ACKed: http://post-office.corp.redhat.com/archives/rhvirt-patches/2011-March/msg00862.html
The TCK test suite passes the tests regarding the reject target (covered by this patch request) on libvirt 0.8.7-16. From my perspective you can close the bug. Thanks.
According to Comment #9, So turn this bug status as Verified.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0596.html