Hi,
Does anyone test creating HVM domains using xl instead of xm then
destroy those domains and check with iptables -L -n output?
I noticed this iptables related old vif/tap entries still there issues
if I use xl to create HVM domUs such as windows XP etc. then either
shutdown or restart those domUs within the guest domUs or using xl
destroy those domUs guest. Example, if I use xl create windowsXPhvm
then it is up and running using for example tap1.0/vif1.0. If I
shutdown or restart that windowsXPhvm within the guest OS, the
tap1.0/vif1.0 rules chain still exists in iptables -L -n output.
There is no related devices in /proc/net/dev though and using xm
instead of xl function correctly.
Hope I explain it clearly and sorry for my bad english.
Thanks.
Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Does anyone test creating HVM domains using xl instead of xm then
destroy those domains and check with iptables -L -n output?
I noticed this iptables related old vif/tap entries still there issues
if I use xl to create HVM domUs such as windows XP etc. then either
shutdown or restart those domUs within the guest domUs or using xl
destroy those domUs guest. Example, if I use xl create windowsXPhvm
then it is up and running using for example tap1.0/vif1.0. If I
shutdown or restart that windowsXPhvm within the guest OS, the
tap1.0/vif1.0 rules chain still exists in iptables -L -n output.
There is no related devices in /proc/net/dev though and using xm
instead of xl function correctly.
Hope I explain it clearly and sorry for my bad english.
Thanks.
Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel