| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-12-05 | |||
| 17:45:45 | cdent | in that case I’d say let’s punt and do it in a followup so it can be looked at separately and more clearly understood | |
| 17:45:57 | jaypipes | cdent: I think he's saying that the *response* always has parent_provider_uuid and therefore the *response* parameter list should have required: true. | |
| 17:46:04 | cdent | my brain is not in that frame right now so can’t tell you something clear and straightforward | |
| 17:46:23 | cdent | effectively yes | |
| 17:47:30 | cdent | I’ve changed my vote for now, in case that helps move things along | |
| 17:49:46 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: allow filter providers in tree https://review.openstack.org/377215 | |
| 17:49:47 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: update client to set parent provider https://review.openstack.org/385693 | |
| 17:49:47 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: adds REST API for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/384807 | |
| 17:49:48 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: SchedulerReportClient._get_providers_in_tree https://review.openstack.org/520663 | |
| 17:49:48 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: Scheduler set_inventory_for_provider does nested https://review.openstack.org/520643 | |
| 17:49:49 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: ProviderTree.populate_from_iterable https://review.openstack.org/520756 | |
| 17:49:49 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: SchedulerReportClient._get_providers_in_aggregates https://review.openstack.org/521097 | |
| 17:49:50 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: ComputeDriver.update_provider_tree() https://review.openstack.org/521187 | |
| 17:49:50 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: Scheduler[Report]Client.get_provider_tree https://review.openstack.org/521098 | |
| 17:49:51 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Use update_provider_tree from resource tracker https://review.openstack.org/520246 | |
| 17:52:04 | jaypipes | cdent: would you mind looking at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377215/ and making sure I've added everything you wanted please? | |
| 17:54:52 | cdent | jaypipes: I think your rebase has gone funk as ps70 has the same stuff as ps62 (in the test file), but there were changes in the middle :( | |
| 17:55:29 | jaypipes | god damn this. | |
| 17:57:18 | jaypipes | I am so fucking sick of this bullshit sliced up and frankensteined set of patches at this point. | |
| 17:58:03 | jaypipes | all this to try and get Eric's WIP patches aligned with what's already been merged. :( | |
| 17:58:36 | edleafe | jaypipes: welcome to my world :) | |
| 17:59:03 | jaypipes | edleafe: how's that? doesn't your series only have like 4 patches in it? are there 7 different branches of that series? | |
| 18:00:00 | jaypipes | cdent: also, it's not ps62. it was fine in ps69 and then ps70 undid all that work :(* | |
| 18:01:01 | jaypipes | clarkb: you had a shortcut for how to essentially revert just the last revision on a series... can you tell me what that was again? | |
| 18:01:02 | cdent | jaypipes: 62 was my reference point as that’s where I made my comments so I compared changes between 62 and 70 and there were none in the test file | |
| 18:01:26 | jaypipes | cdent: look at 69... | |
| 18:01:38 | edleafe | jaypipes: didn't mean to imply that mine was as bad as yours. Just the same set of headaches. | |
| 18:01:59 | jaypipes | edleafe: well, at least you don't have 5 people *actively* pushing stuff in your series. | |
| 18:02:05 | clarkb | jaypipes: `git review -d 123456,1 && git commit --amend #update commit message because gerrit && git review` | |
| 18:02:22 | cdent | jaypipes: yeah, already did, it looks like what I hoped for | |
| 18:02:38 | clarkb | that downloads into a local branch then you edit the commit message so that gerrit doesn't reject it as an existing patchset, then push to gerrit | |
| 18:02:39 | jaypipes | clarkb: ack, thanks | |
| 18:04:49 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: allow filter providers in tree https://review.openstack.org/377215 | |
| 18:05:44 | jaypipes | clarkb: oddly, Gerrit changed the topic of the patch to bp/nested-resource-providers-patch69 | |
| 18:06:01 | clarkb | I think that may have been git review being a little too smart | |
| 18:06:20 | clarkb | you can chagne it in the ui if you want (and in the future use git review -t some-topic to override git review) | |
| 18:06:21 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: adds REST API for nested providers https://review.openstack.org/384807 | |
| 18:06:43 | openstackgerrit | Jay Pipes proposed openstack/nova master: placement: update client to set parent provider https://review.openstack.org/385693 | |
| 18:08:38 | jaypipes | alex_xu, edleafe, mriedem, dansmith, cdent, bauzas, gibi, melwitt: OK, well if we can focus on getting up to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/385693/ merged, that would be cool. thanks in advance. | |
| 18:08:53 | cdent | ✔ | |
| 18:14:18 | edleafe | ✔ | |
| 18:32:29 | mriedem | melwitt: jaypipes: ack | |
| 18:35:43 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for shelve_offload instances https://review.openstack.org/523653 | |
| 18:35:43 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Modify _poll_shelved_instances periodic task call _shelve_offload_instance() https://review.openstack.org/524047 | |
| 18:35:44 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for backup instances https://review.openstack.org/523676 | |
| 18:48:22 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for backup instances https://review.openstack.org/523676 | |
| 18:48:22 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for shelve_offload instances https://review.openstack.org/523653 | |
| 18:53:22 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add instance action record for backup instances https://review.openstack.org/523676 | |
| 19:27:43 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add a new check to volume attach https://review.openstack.org/525622 | |
| 19:31:28 | itlinux | hello all I wonder if any one can suggest the best way to get sec group disabled.. Thanks | |
| 19:34:15 | mriedem | ildikov: i'm going to update https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330285/169 | |
| 19:34:52 | ildikov | mriedem: ok, I hit a rebase issue with it | |
| 19:34:57 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Move flushing block devices to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/519010 | |
| 19:34:57 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Convert ext filesystem resizes to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/517516 | |
| 19:34:58 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Move remaining uses of parted to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/519483 | |
| 19:34:58 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Start moving users of parted to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/519011 | |
| 19:34:59 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Convert users of tune2fs to privsep. https://review.openstack.org/519484 | |
| 19:35:10 | mriedem | ildikov: yes, and tempest is failing now too, so i'll handle both issues | |
| 19:35:11 | ildikov | mriedem: and not with my laptop for a little while now | |
| 19:35:36 | ildikov | mriedem: I guess Tempest is just because of the revert | |
| 19:35:46 | ildikov | It got landed in the meantime | |
| 19:35:55 | ildikov | mriedem: thank you | |
| 19:36:22 | ildikov | mriedem: and sorry for being a bit unpleasant... | |
| 19:40:16 | sean-k-mooney2 | gus: o/ | |
| 19:43:48 | sean-k-mooney2 | gus: QQ if i have two fuctions func1 and func2 and both are decorated as a privsep entrypoint and func1 calls func2 will that dispatch the call to func2 via the unix socket again even though the body of func1 is executing in the privsep deamon process? | |
| 19:49:11 | sean-k-mooney2 | gus: if the privsep entrypoint decorator that was used for func1 and func2 were from a different privsep context im guessing the answer would have to be yes as they may have different capablitys which woudld lead me to belive if they were the same context i would still invoke func2 via the socket. | |
| 19:54:44 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: ^^ any input on the above question regarding nested privsep calls? | |
| 19:58:19 | mikal | sean-k-mooney2: huh, we haven't done anything like that. I'm really not sure. | |
| 19:58:39 | mikal | sean-k-mooney2: I guess the decorators aren't magic, and would just apply the contexts in the order the decorators were executed | |
| 19:58:56 | mikal | sean-k-mooney2: and if you didn't get an error from privsep calling itself, then you'd get the context of the innermost call | |
| 19:59:09 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: actully we do it in os-vif but i belive its unintentional. | |
| 19:59:31 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: i think two decorators were acidentally swapped | |
| 20:00:21 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: in the os-vif case both decorators are form the same privsep context so both have the same permissions | |
| 20:00:45 | mikal | Oh, interesting. So its either crash, or work as expected? | |
| 20:01:00 | sean-k-mooney2 | basically i think https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/blob/23c71e083aeb3536c4cf4c46b5c7712b0f7442ee/vif_plug_linux_bridge/linux_net.py#L58 and https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/blob/23c71e083aeb3536c4cf4c46b5c7712b0f7442ee/vif_plug_linux_bridge/linux_net.py#L70 are swapped | |
| 20:01:24 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: i think it works as expected but just dispatches twice | |
| 20:02:31 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: https://github.com/openstack/os-vif/blob/23c71e083aeb3536c4cf4c46b5c7712b0f7442ee/vif_plug_linux_bridge/linux_net.py#L65 the call to _ensure_bridge_privileged is in a privesep context but _ensure_bridge_privileged is also privaldged | |
| 20:06:28 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: im going to try and un nest the calls tomorow but i realised while reviewing https://review.openstack.org/#/c/484386/26/os_vif/privsep.py that the functions that use this new privsep context are only ever invoked form privaldged function in the plugins which have the same capablites CAP_NET_ADMIN | |
| 20:07:55 | sean-k-mooney2 | so 1 that would result in nested context with the same capablites and 2 it would intoduce another instance of the privsep deamon to hanel that context both of which i think are not needed. | |
| 20:08:51 | sean-k-mooney2 | mikal: am im going to head home for the evening but if you have a chance could you take a look and see if it makes sense to intorduce this new privsep context or not? | |
| 20:19:39 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Implement new attach Cinder flow https://review.openstack.org/330285 | |
| 20:19:40 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: libvirt: Allow multiple volume attachments https://review.openstack.org/267587 | |
| 20:21:30 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Allow multi-attach in compute api https://review.openstack.org/271047 | |
| 20:21:52 | mriedem | ildikov: i touched up some things in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267587/ and left some FIXMEs | |
| 20:22:57 | ildikov | Oh, I thought you'll fix up the new attach patch only | |
| 20:23:06 | mriedem | i wanted to rebase the series | |
| 20:24:10 | ildikov | Oh, ok, I left behind the API one on purpose, but will check what you did in a bit :) | |
| 20:24:17 | ildikov | Thanks!!! | |
| 20:24:51 | ildikov | I can look into the Cinder policies and client leftovers too a bit then... | |
| 20:41:13 | mriedem | i'm also going to add unit tests for the new flow to nova.tests.unit.virt.test_block_device in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/330285/170 - we might want to consider splitting out the virt.block_device changes too | |
| 20:42:46 | mikal | mriedem: you had a chance to read my comment on that privsep bug? | |
| 20:42:53 | mriedem | mikal: nope | |
| 20:46:03 | mikal | mriedem: good man. In summary, I have no idea what you people are talking about. | |
| 20:46:15 | mriedem | mikal: that's what you told me yesterday, so ok :) | |
| 20:46:32 | mikal | mriedem: oh, I was expecting you to call me a liar on the bug is all | |
| 20:47:04 | jaypipes | cdent: you have any idea what is causing this tempest.scenario.test_server_multinode.TestServerMultinode.test_schedule_to_all_nodes failure with the "Failed to get resource provider with UUID XXXX" issue that keeps occurring? I think you and efried_cya_wed may have talked aboiut it? | |
| 20:47:41 | cdent | yeah, there’s a bug for it, I’m working on it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1736385 basically placement is getting restarted | |
| 20:47:42 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1736385 in grenade "placement is not being properly restarted in grenade (pike to master)" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Chris Dent (cdent) | |
| 20:48:11 | cdent | it’s apparently been a latent problem only exposed because exception handing that efried_cya_wed added | |
| 20:48:27 | jaypipes | cdent: k. is there anything I can do to assist? | |