Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Potentially fix issue with boot ordering #179

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

eseliger
Copy link
Member

It seems that recently docker started to run after the iptables-restore command, which then fails because it depends on some things to be created by docker I think.

This might fix our immediate issue by loading the chain manually again after boot.

Test plan: We'll need to upgrade an instance to use this. But running it manually on a broken one does make it start the executor service afterwards.

It seems that recently docker started to run after the iptables-restore command, which then fails because it depends on some things to be created by docker I think.

This might fix our immediate issue by loading the chain manually again after boot.
Copy link

@filiphaftek filiphaftek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TY

@willdollman
Copy link

  • What about the behaviour if starting netfilter-persistent succeeded at boot? I think it'll apply the rules twice.
  • Do we have ipv6 rules to load as well?

My (untested) suggestion is:
systemctl is-active netfilter-persistent || systemctl start netfilter-persistent

netfilter-persistent is a oneshot service so systemctl starting it again will rerun it even if it's succeeded, and we'd apply the rules twice. I believe is-active will return true if the previous execution successfully run though.

@eseliger
Copy link
Member Author

We don’t store any rules for v6 ourselves - so from the firecracker pov we don’t need them I believe.

Good question about the double loading, I assumed it was a safe thing to run again 😅

@eseliger eseliger changed the title Potentially fix over issue with boot ordering Potentially fix issue with boot ordering Feb 28, 2025
@eseliger
Copy link
Member Author

eseliger commented Mar 3, 2025

@willdollman @filiphaftek where did we land on this? It seems that reloading the file is safe?

@filiphaftek
Copy link

@willdollman @filiphaftek where did we land on this? It seems that reloading the file is safe?

Yes, it works on Cloud and we see no issues.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants