On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:23:30 +0100
Paul Holzinger<pholzing(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Looking at
the main function I see:
if (c.debug)
__setlogmask(LOG_UPTO(LOG_DEBUG));
else if (c.quiet)
__setlogmask(LOG_UPTO(LOG_ERR));
^^^
else
__setlogmask(LOG_UPTO(LOG_INFO));
So if the default is still log level is info there is no way for podman
to say show warnings/errors only.
That's because the second clause above is
wrong, I think. It should be:
else if (c.quiet)
__setlogmask(LOG_UPTO(LOG_WARN));
because we also say in the man page:
-q, --quiet
Don't print informational messages.
but nowhere it's written that we'll also hide warnings with it.
We can use --quiet but I think the
warnings should be displayed to end users as well.
So my next request would be to one of the following:
a) change the default level to warn but then there no way show info
unless debug is set (or add a new flag for info)
I think LOG_INFO should really be
the default, if you use passt or
pasta stand-alone that's very helpful.
b) add a flag to select warning level
...which is however what --quiet is supposed to do.
c) log info to stdout and warn/err to stderr then
podman could just show
stderr and hide stdout
...which doesn't fit the meaning of standard output
though: pasta has
no functional terminal output.
I would just fix --quiet if that suits Podman as well.
While at
it, make it clear that we're disabling IPv4 or IPv6 if
there's no routable interface for the corresponding IP version.
Reported-by: Paul Holzinger<pholzing(a)redhat.com>
Link:https://github.com/containers/podman/pull/21563#issuecomment-1937024642
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio<sbrivio(a)redhat.com>
---
v2: Report that we're disabling IPv4 or IPv6 in the message
conf.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/conf.c b/conf.c
index 5e15b66..3646700 100644
--- a/conf.c
+++ b/conf.c
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ static unsigned int conf_ip4(unsigned int ifi,
ifi = nl_get_ext_if(nl_sock, AF_INET);
if (!ifi) {
- warn("No external routable interface for IPv4");
+ info("No routable interface for IPv4: IPv4 is disabled");
return 0;
}
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ static unsigned int conf_ip6(unsigned int ifi,
ifi = nl_get_ext_if(nl_sock, AF_INET6);
if (!ifi) {
- warn("No external routable interface for IPv6");
+ info("No routable interface for IPv6: IPv6 is disabled");
The code
only looks for a default route, so if one has some custom
internal routes then saying no routable interface found is confusing.
What this should really say is:
No interface with a default route for IPv...
Oops, sorry, I just pushed this.
I think it's clear enough in the sense that by design passt and pasta
need a default route, and if you have a specific route on a given
interface, that interface is not "routable" for our purposes.
But sure, we can make it more explicit. Building on your suggestion --
would this be okay:
"No interface with a default route for IPv[46]: disabling IPv[64]"
Yes
that looks good. I don't mind to much, I was just being pedantic
there as you already touched the message anyway. I am totally fine if
you keep the message like it is right now.