Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2018-10-08
14:09:09 sean-k-mooney mriedem: can we do stable releaes of os-vif and then use them with nova stable branches? the upperconstraitns appear to cap zstreams also https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/stable/pike/upper-constraints.txt#L458
14:16:58 openstackgerrit Lucian Petrut proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-simple-tenant-usage result order https://review.openstack.org/608685
14:17:18 sean-k-mooney dansmith: bauzas: got a second to answer a question about stable branch releases?
14:18:25 sean-k-mooney can we do a release of a lib os-vif in this case for a sable branch and then raise the z stream on stable/X to allow that z stream
14:19:04 sean-k-mooney the intent being to allow nova on stable/X to consume the zstream release of os-vif for stable/X
14:19:19 dansmith sean-k-mooney: you need to stop saying z-stream up here :)
14:19:41 sean-k-mooney well thats what tehy are called upstream too
14:20:10 dansmith um, really? I don't think I've heard that from non-redhat people but, whatever :)
14:20:30 dansmith sean-k-mooney: I don't think we bump requirements in stable other than to fix critical bugs, but mriedem is the right person to ask that
14:21:05 sean-k-mooney dansmith: well we used to call x.y.z releases z streams at intel too
14:21:27 sean-k-mooney ok well its for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/602384/
14:21:30 mriedem mmm s390x stream
14:22:01 dansmith heh
14:23:38 mriedem so no we don't need to bump minimum required versions in stable for that os-vif change
14:23:47 mriedem upper-constraints can be bumped
14:23:59 sean-k-mooney mriedem: ya i just wanted to bump upper
14:24:08 mriedem otherwise assume stable GA'ed and is frozen with the minimum
14:38:06 lpetrut Hi, I have a trivial fix for "nova usage-list", which is counting instances twice: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/608685/
14:48:01 mriedem lpetrut: it would be really nice if we could have a functional test to go along with that to show the regression
14:48:35 mriedem paging over simple tenant usage is confusing enough already
14:49:16 lpetrut sure, I'll add a test
14:52:01 openstackgerrit Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add native implementation OVSDB API https://review.openstack.org/482226
14:54:38 openstackgerrit Jan Gutter proposed openstack/os-vif master: Add support for generic representors https://review.openstack.org/608693
15:01:00 openstackgerrit Markus Hentsch proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Spec for the Nova part of Image Encryption https://review.openstack.org/608696
15:07:30 mriedem jaypipes: email to yikun sent about those allocation ratio specs
15:08:05 jaypipes mriedem: ty
15:08:09 mriedem efried: gibi: fyi since i need to backport https://review.openstack.org/#/c/606106/ i'm not going to try and fit in the newly refactored assertion method usage and just copy the old methods into the test itself, which i will remove from master in a follow up
15:09:18 efried mriedem: ack, sounds fair.
15:24:11 openstackgerrit Martin Midolesov proposed openstack/nova master: Implementing graceful shutdown. https://review.openstack.org/608704
15:24:33 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add volume-backed evacuate test https://review.openstack.org/604397
15:24:33 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add post-test hook for testing evacuate https://review.openstack.org/602174
15:24:35 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor TestEvacuateDeleteServerRestartOriginalCompute https://review.openstack.org/608705
15:24:35 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Run evacuate tests with local/lvm and shared/rbd storage https://review.openstack.org/604400
15:24:35 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix InstanceNotFound during _destroy_evacuated_instances https://review.openstack.org/606122
15:24:35 openstack bug 1794996 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "_destroy_evacuated_instances fails and kills n-cpu startup if lazy-loading flavor on a deleted instance" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1794996 - Assigned to Matt Riedemann (mriedem)
15:24:35 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional regression test for bug 1794996 https://review.openstack.org/606106
15:31:19 mriedem gibi: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/605785/ can we just fail fast in the API/conductor if the admin is trying to force a host during live migration and the instance has allocations on non-standard resource classes? where non-standard is anything other than VCPU/MEMORY_MB/DISK_GB?
15:31:41 mriedem granted, with jay's CPU resource tracking spec, VCPU would eventually be nested too...
15:31:58 jaypipes mriedem: *could* be an inventory on a child provider, yes.
15:32:19 jaypipes mriedem: though it's bauzas' spec that goes into that.
15:32:44 jaypipes mriedem: since he wanted to keep all the NUMA-ness in his spec and out of the cpu-resources spec.
15:33:32 bauzas ... and I need to rebase this spec
15:33:54 bauzas since we said to unplug the NUMA affinity from this spec
15:36:37 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/os-vif master: Add abstract OVSDB API https://review.openstack.org/476612
15:43:13 mriedem sure, i just don't want to get too hung up on trying to bend over backward to honor that force parameter
15:43:18 mriedem which is a bad idea to use in the first place
15:44:14 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: Fix missing import in test_compute_mgr https://review.openstack.org/608426
16:04:35 mriedem need another core to look at the vmware live migration patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270116/
16:04:39 mriedem it's in a runway, +2 from me
16:04:41 mriedem CI is passing
16:04:57 sean-k-mooney mriedem: i was just talking to fungi about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/602384/ and the related bug
16:05:33 sean-k-mooney given its status he indicated we can talk about it here.
16:05:35 fungi yeah, a point-in-time summary of the situation would be helpful to add to that bug
16:05:58 fungi it's unclear to me how this can be a bug in nova but gets fixed by a patch to os-vif
16:06:11 sean-k-mooney fungi: i will update the bug today.
16:06:19 fungi much appreciated
16:07:03 fungi in particular if the vulnerability in the service has to be fixed by updating a dependent library, this is going to be complicated to communicate and may also make backporting harder
16:07:12 sean-k-mooney fungi: effectivly nova will wait for a notification form nuetron to know the port has been wired up on migration.
16:07:32 sean-k-mooney but in this edgecase os-vif is not used to plug the port libvirt is
16:07:51 sean-k-mooney as such we fallback to a time out and migrate without first having neutron wire up the port
16:08:23 sean-k-mooney neutron then wires up the port when the vm starts but that takes a little tiem to happen
16:08:47 sean-k-mooney the fix is to delegate to the os-vif lib to plug the interface in this edgecase also
16:09:17 sean-k-mooney that way the port will be wired up by neutron before we migrate
16:09:36 fungi and this is effectively a design flaw in nova because it assumes the call won't time out? or a bug in neutron for not treating it consistently using os-vif?
16:10:14 sean-k-mooney fungi: its legacy behavior form when nova woululd do firewalling for the port instead of neutron
16:10:54 fungi okay, so this will also eventually be solved when nova removes that deprecated behavior?
16:10:58 sean-k-mooney that said yes its partly a design flaw in nova.
16:11:29 sean-k-mooney yes if nova always used os-vif to plug the interface it would not happen
16:12:16 fungi and so https://review.openstack.org/602384 is basically a workaround to avoid having to switch nova to calling into os-vif for these?
16:12:33 mriedem umm...we use os-vif with nova-net too, so "yes if nova always used os-vif to plug the interface it would not happen" is kind of confusing
16:13:19 sean-k-mooney mriedem: the ovs plugin in os-vif was designed not to plug the interface in this case because libvirt does that
16:14:04 sean-k-mooney so we expressly do not create the ovs port and allow libvirt to do that currently. the change makes os-vif create the port which allows neutron to wire it up before we migrate the vm
16:15:16 sean-k-mooney mriedem: fungi so its not that nova does not call os-vif in this case. it does but os-vif was designed not to plug the interface in this case to maintain parity with how nova plugged interface before os-vif was split out
16:15:32 sean-k-mooney does that make sense?
16:16:00 mriedem shrug
16:16:03 fungi so the bug is in nova making assumptions about os-vif's behavior in this circumstance, or that os-vif doesn't fully implement the behavior nova expects?
16:16:20 mriedem sean-k-mooney: is this going to be a weird one off for ovs in os-vif only?
16:16:34 mriedem like will the behavior be different for all other vif types?
16:17:03 mriedem and when you say libvirt, do you mean the nova libvirt driver or libvirt the service?
16:17:11 sean-k-mooney that is a good question. i think there are a class of bugs related to this.
16:17:21 sean-k-mooney this bug predate os-vif
16:17:40 sean-k-mooney the original behavoir was incorrect
16:18:01 sean-k-mooney i say that becase anytime libvirt plugs the vif this can happen
16:18:48 sean-k-mooney this will not happen for vhost-user port as libvirt does not hanel plugin in that case. simplarly for siov libvirt set the vlan tag not neutron so that is safe
16:19:52 sean-k-mooney for now this is a one off but i need to look at other backends such as linux bridge to confirm this is a one off
16:19:56 fungi is this going to be backportable at least as far as stable/pike of os-vif? since we'll want a 1.7.1 tagged there for nova stable/pike to consume i guess
16:20:09 sean-k-mooney fungi: yes it should be
16:20:57 sean-k-mooney fungi: it requires not code change out side of os-vif and has no dependceis that i can tell to backport the change.
16:21:56 fungi i'm still a little iffy on how to go about describing this situation if we decide to publish an official advisory, particularly in that we consider it a nova bug but didn't patch nova to fix it. does the bug remain in nova even with newer os-vif? or is it simpler to explain it as a shortcoming of os-vif that we fixed to eliminate this behavior?
16:23:14 jaypipes mriedem: did the vmware live migration patch.
16:23:20 sean-k-mooney fungi: a newer os-vif will resolve the issue. my concern with calling this an os-vif only bug is if we go back to before we split out os-vif the bug i belive would still exist in the nova tree
16:24:24 fungi well, the advisory will only concern itself with the state of these repositories as of pike or later since we don't claim to provide security support to eol or em branches/releases
16:25:16 sean-k-mooney fungi: in that case its likely eaiser to discribe it as a os-vif bug given that pike uses os-vif
16:27:51 fungi and when you say "a class of bugs related to this" have any more been reported yet?
16:28:10 sean-k-mooney fungi: given the above if i add a release not to the os-vif change and propose backports. would it be inline with stable/vulnerablity policy to cut a release and bump the upper consttaint in the stable release
16:29:04 fungi mriedem would likely be able to better advise you on whether that particular change is suitable from a stable backport pilicy perspective
16:29:08 sean-k-mooney fungi: no but its posibly that thrid party plugins that manage ovs interfaces will need the same fix
16:30:02 fungi okay, so similar fixes may need to be applied to third-party ovs interface management plugins but not to any others officially managed by openstack as far as you're aware?
16:31:04 sean-k-mooney i just checked the linux bridge plugin and it does not need a similar fix as far as i can tell. so no none that i am aware of
16:31:41 fungi and what's the situation with https://review.openstack.org/602432 ? is that going to be abandoned as unneeded?

Earlier   Later