Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 24, 2020. It is now read-only.

kvm: solve certain routing issues by using the same default bridge as CNI #3905

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 21, 2018

Conversation

celskeggs
Copy link
Contributor

When the kvm stage1 and the coreos stage1 are used on the same machine with a
flannel CNI configuration (and likely other configurations) without a specified
bridge name, different bridges will be constructed by each stage1 for the same
subnet -- cni0 and kvm-cni0 -- causing traffic intended for the
later-constructed bridge to be lost, as it is routed to the earlier-constructed
bridge.

The normal workaround is to specify a bridge name in the CNI configuration, but
this fix avoids the issue altogether by making sure that cni0 is used in all
cases.

I can't find any records of a specific motivation for using kvm-cni0 instead of cni0, so it's possible that I'm missing the original reason behind it, but it seems like an arbitrarily-made decision from the original development of CNI support in the kvm stage1.

When the kvm stage1 and the coreos stage1 are used on the same machine with a
flannel CNI configuration (and likely other configurations) without a specified
bridge name, different bridges will be constructed by each stage1 for the same
subnet -- cni0 and kvm-cni0 -- causing traffic intended for the
later-constructed bridge to be lost, as it is routed to the earlier-constructed
bridge.

The normal workaround is to specify a bridge name in the CNI configuration, but
this fix avoids the issue altogether by making sure that cni0 is used in all
cases.
@lucab
Copy link
Member

lucab commented Feb 19, 2018

/cc @squeed

@squeed
Copy link
Contributor

squeed commented Feb 21, 2018

LGTM!

@squeed squeed merged commit 94eb580 into rkt:master Feb 21, 2018
@iaguis iaguis added this to the 1.30.0 milestone Apr 11, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants