Management ip address resolution

[EduFrazao]

Description

This PR solves a situation when the management network interface does not have a defined IP address.
When this interface is a bridge, the management ip can be placed directly in the bridge (more common) and sometimes in virtual interfaces linked to it.
On this scenarios, the cloudstack agent iterates over all interfaces and select the first one with a valid ip address.
This brings unpredictable behavior, like choosing wrong interface address, and publishing this address to management servers, causing problems with migrations, guest consoles for example.

I've added two new ways to search for the correct management address:

• First and more "secure" is to explicitly define the management ip address on agent.properties. The agent will find the interface bound to this address and configure it as private interface.
• If configuring this address is not desirable, agent will get the management server addresses, and try to establish a socket (without tcp overhead) with it. If it suceeds, will possible to collect the source ip address used to reach management servers. I belive that this is a more assertive way to find out the host management address.
  If the above methods don't work, the actual behavior is used without changes.

1. Setup a Full L3 network design, with management defined as a traffic label over a "virtual physical address".
2. Create a bridge and setup a vxlan interface with this bridge as master interface.
3. Define a veth interface and define the bridge as master for this interface too.
4. Derfine in this veth interface, the IP address that will be used to reach the management servers.
5. Theres no guarantee that this will be the IP address reported to the management server.

Fixes: #13519

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

I have two hipervisors in production with this changes. Whitout it, I can't make my cluster to work well, cause I can't do migrations and open guest instances terminal
To test it I used both the explicit configuration and route based detection for several days, marking servers for maintenance, rebooting hypervisors and management servers.

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Configuring an invalid Ip address as management address. The setting was ignored as expected, because no interface was found with it. System fallback to another methods.

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache CloudStack community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
Here are some useful points:

• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (raise doc PR at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation)
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from the committers.
• Pay attention to the quality of your code, ensure tests are passing and your PR doesn't have conflicts.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Issues, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the CloudStack Coding Conventions.
  Apache CloudStack is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@cloudstack.apache.org (https://cloudstack.apache.org/mailing-lists.html)
  Slack: https://apachecloudstack.slack.com/

[DaanHoogland]

thanks @EduFrazao , clgtm.

[DaanHoogland]

also @EduFrazao , I marked it for 24 as you based the PR off main. please rebase if you need it on 22.2 or somewhere else.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 3.44828% with 56 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 19.64%. Comparing base (e1cf0f3) to head (813ea6e).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...in/java/com/cloud/resource/ServerResourceBase.java	1.81%	54 Missing ⚠️
...ervisor/kvm/resource/LibvirtComputingResource.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13603      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     19.64%   19.64%   -0.01%     
  Complexity    19796    19796              
============================================
  Files          6368     6368              
  Lines        575119   575176      +57     
  Branches      70382    70394      +12     
============================================
- Hits         112994   112989       -5     
- Misses       449839   449900      +61     
- Partials      12286    12287       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.41% <ø> (ø)
unittests	20.91% <3.44%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EduFrazao]

also @EduFrazao , I marked it for 24 as you based the PR off main. please rebase if you need it on 22.2 or somewhere else.

Thank you very mutch.
I will do a rebase, I belive that this is a minor change, maybe it suitable for a bugfix release. Thank you for pointing this.

[EduFrazao]

@DaanHoogland rebase done!
Let me know if there is something more to do!

PS: I think that my rebase was not made on the correct branch right?

[DaanHoogland]

@DaanHoogland rebase done! Let me know if there is something more to do!

PS: I think that my rebase was not made on the correct branch right?

looks like it is still based on main. let me know if you want it on 4.22 or 4.20 and if you need help with that. (quick preview: something like git rebase --onto <other branch> <the commit before your first one> should do the trick)