network: force re-creation of iptables private chains on firewalld restart

network: force re-creation of iptables private chains on firewalld restart

When firewalld is stopped, it removes *all* iptables rules and chains,
including those added by libvirt. Since restarting firewalld means
stopping and then starting it, any time it is restarted, libvirt needs
to recreate all the private iptables chains it uses, along with all
the rules it adds.

We already have code in place to call networkReloadFirewallRules() any
time we're notified of a firewalld start, and
networkReloadFirewallRules() will call
networkPreReloadFirewallRules(), which calls
networkSetupPrivateChains(); unfortunately that last call is called
using virOnce(), meaning that it will only be called the first time
through networkPreReloadFirewallRules() after libvirtd starts - so of
course when firewalld is later restarted, the call to
networkSetupPrivateChains() is skipped.

The neat and tidy way to fix this would be if there was a standard way
to reset a pthread_once_t object so that the next time virOnce was
called, it would think the function hadn't been called, and call it
again. Unfortunately, there isn't any official way of doing that (we
*could* just fill it with 0 and hope for the best, but that doesn't
seem very safe.

So instead, this patch just adds a static variable called
chainInitDone, which is set to true after networkSetupPrivateChains()
is called for the first time, and then during calls to
networkPreReloadFirewallRules(), if chainInitDone is set, we call
networkSetupPrivateChains() directly instead of via virOnce().

It may seem unsafe to directly call a function that is meant to be
called only once, but I think in this case we're safe - there's
nothing in the function that is inherently "once only" - it doesn't
initialize anything that can't safely be re-initialized (as long as
two threads don't try to do it at the same time), and it only happens
when responding to a dbus message that firewalld has been started (and
I don't think it's possible for us to be processing two of those at
once), and even then only if the initial call to the function has
already been completed (so we're safe if we receive a firewalld
restart call at a time when we haven't yet called it, or even if
another thread is already in the process of executing it. The only
problematic bit I can think of is if another thread is in the process
of adding an iptable rule at the time we're executing this function,
but 1) none of those threads will be trying to add chains, and 2) if
there was a concurrency problem with other threads adding iptables
rules while firewalld was being restarted, it would still be a problem
even without this change.

This is yet another patch that fixes an occurrence of this error:

COMMAND_FAILED: '/usr/sbin/iptables -w10 -w --table filter --insert LIBVIRT_INP --in-interface virbr0 --protocol tcp --destination-port 67 --jump ACCEPT' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.

In particular, this resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1813830

Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>