| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-30 | |||
| 19:34:59 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Functional tests for NUMA live migration https://review.opendev.org/672595 | |
| 19:35:01 | openstack | bug 1845146 in OpenStack Compute (nova) train "NUMA aware live migration failed when vCPU pin set" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1845146 - Assigned to Dan Smith (danms) | |
| 19:35:01 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: NUMA LM: Add func test for bug 1845146 https://review.opendev.org/687404 | |
| 19:52:08 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: want to drop your -W from https://review.opendev.org/#/c/703115/ now that the stable/stein changes have merged | |
| 19:53:32 | sean-k-mooney | done | |
| 20:57:11 | efried | Nova meeting shortly in #openstack-meeting | |
| 21:48:51 | melwitt | efried: created https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-audit | |
| 21:49:03 | efried | thanks melwitt | |
| 22:16:57 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing attach_interfaces policies https://review.opendev.org/705126 | |
| 22:40:42 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove old policy enforcement in attach_interfaces https://review.opendev.org/705127 | |
| 22:52:57 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing attach_interfaces policies https://review.opendev.org/705126 | |
| 22:55:15 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing attach_interfaces policies https://review.opendev.org/705126 | |
| 23:14:11 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing attach_interfaces policies https://review.opendev.org/705126 | |
| 23:40:03 | melwitt | gmann: question on https://review.opendev.org/701629 | |
| 23:45:13 | gmann | melwitt: replied. I am removing user_id from policy target in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/701642/ | |
| 23:45:49 | gmann | melwitt: but if we keep this operation restriction at user level then we can keep. | |
| 23:46:32 | gmann | we do not pass user_id for most of the(i think all except user level API like keypair etc) API. it is all enforced at project level | |
| 23:46:36 | melwitt | gmann: ok. I'm thinking from the perspective of us having to keep the legacy policy behavior for some time or some transition period. is my understanding correct? | |
| 23:47:22 | melwitt | because from the look of the old tests, we support letting operators restrict password change to only the user set on the instance | |
| 23:48:36 | gmann | melwitt: yeah, that is good point. We can keep supporting it same way till we completely migrate to new | |
| 23:49:06 | melwitt | I'm happy to be wrong but I thought we were keeping current support as-is for now and if we want to change it, need some signal about deprecation and a transition period before dropping | |
| 23:50:17 | melwitt | I was reading this part of the spec again https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ussuri/approved/policy-defaults-refresh.html#backward-compatibility-and-migration-plan | |
| 23:52:40 | gmann | yeah. by removing the user_id from target we can break some deployment. | |
| 23:52:46 | melwitt | "Remove any project or user checks from the policy file defaults, as this is now done in code, without breaking user-id-based-policy-enforcement" | |
| 23:53:01 | melwitt | I'm wondering if we removed any in the already merged patches | |
| 23:54:30 | gmann | no, this is first one where user_id is passed and i updated to remove that. in "pass actual target" patches I pass the actual target wherever needed. like owner rule where project_id is needed. | |
| 23:55:22 | melwitt | ok | |
| 23:55:48 | gmann | "pass actual target" patches can tell us if any where we are changing user-level enforcement | |
| 23:56:04 | melwitt | ok, that is good to know | |
| 23:57:00 | melwitt | not directly related to this, I do wonder if operators would be disappointed to lose user-level enforcement in the future on something like a admin password. but that's a separate issue | |
| 23:58:15 | gmann | yeah, i think we need to change that with separate discussion if everyone ok. else keep it as it is. | |
| 23:58:15 | melwitt | I see now in the pass actual target, thanks for the tip https://review.opendev.org/#/c/701642/1/nova/api/openstack/compute/admin_password.py | |
| 23:59:25 | gmann | melwitt: i found one bug in attach_interface policy which is admin_or_owner but it pass for every context because project_id is not passed in policy target | |
| 23:59:29 | melwitt | yeah, agreed. I can't predict what operators would want to see there, would be a good question for the forum and if no one cares about user-level enforcement, we remove it after the transition period | |
| #openstack-nova - 2020-01-31 | |||
| 00:00:20 | melwitt | gmann: bug in the legacy policy or bug in the more recently policy patches merged? | |
| 00:00:20 | gmann | because our policy doc say it is admin_or_owner but code is buggy so I am thinking whether we can fix this as bug or leave this operation open for everyone | |
| 00:00:27 | gmann | legacy | |
| 00:00:58 | gmann | this one - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/705126/4 | |
| 00:00:58 | melwitt | sigh ... I'm not surprised, there's a lot of bugs/quirks there. | |
| 00:01:26 | gmann | i added the test with admin_or_owner context to pass and other proejct to fail. but those tests fail as you can see in gate. | |
| 00:01:38 | melwitt | I guess my instinct would be to fix the bug first and then stack the new stuff on top, but that might be just me | |
| 00:02:24 | gmann | yeah that is what i was thinking. so that we can see the bug and fix first and then start the new policy defaults | |
| 00:02:25 | melwitt | I see. well, that's a good sign for the new test coverage I guess :) | |
| 00:02:32 | gmann | yeah | |
| 00:02:36 | melwitt | it's catching bugs | |
| 00:02:55 | gmann | i will file bug and put fix as separate change. | |
| 00:03:09 | melwitt | sounds great ++ | |
| 00:03:26 | melwitt | add me as reviewer when you have it ready | |
| 00:03:33 | gmann | sure, thanks | |
| 00:22:33 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-attach-interfaces policy to be admin_or_owner https://review.opendev.org/705135 | |
| 02:12:21 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-attach-interfaces policy to be admin_or_owner https://review.opendev.org/705135 | |
| 02:31:00 | gmann | melwitt: ^^ | |
| 02:34:41 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Block rebuild when NUMA topology changed https://review.opendev.org/702972 | |
| 02:51:52 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove old policy enforcement in attach_interfaces https://review.opendev.org/705127 | |
| 04:26:53 | melwitt | gmann: ack thanks, will look tomorrow | |
| 09:46:39 | gibi | dansmith: I've investigated the obj_what_changed() way to detect if the pci requests need s refres during live migraton rollback but this idea fails for mutliple reasons. See my answer in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/702261/4/nova/compute/manager.py@8563 | |
| 10:17:29 | jawad_axd | Hi all. M writing once again here. Question is, iperf3 shows 9.89 Gbits/sec between hosts while instances on same network on these two hosts have iperf3 108 MBytes/sec from inside. How come bandwidth is so poor inside instances? I am using centos7.7, stein, linux bridge,vxlan setup. Any suggestions? | |
| 10:27:26 | gibi | jawad_axd: when you measure performance between the two hosts does the packets are going throigh the same linux bridge as the guests uses in the other measurement between guests? | |
| 10:32:50 | jawad_axd | Nope. Performance between physical hosts is using another bridge at physical NIC. Its just for reference point for guest performance. While guests using bridges created by neutron. | |
| 10:34:41 | gibi | jawad_axd: what I would do is to add layers from the guest-guest test to the host-host test one by one to see which layer causes the degradation | |
| 10:36:13 | stephenfin | bauzas: Could you take a look at these today? https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/remove-nova-network-ussuri | |
| 10:36:20 | bauzas | sure | |
| 10:36:31 | bauzas | I need to go to the gym but I can do it later | |
| 10:36:36 | stephenfin | ta | |
| 10:42:07 | gibi | bauzas: I'm +2 again on the placmenet audit patch https://review.opendev.org/#/c/670112/ | |
| 10:42:16 | bauzas | cool thanks ! | |
| 10:44:13 | gibi | stephenfin: I'm +2 on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/662522/16 but it need another rebase | |
| 12:58:14 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: virt: Provide block_device_info during rescue https://review.opendev.org/700811 | |
| 12:58:15 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Report COMPUTE_RESCUE_BFV and check during rescue https://review.opendev.org/701429 | |
| 12:58:15 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add support for stable device rescue https://review.opendev.org/700812 | |
| 12:58:16 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: WIP libvirt: Support boot from volume instance rescue https://review.opendev.org/701431 | |
| 12:58:16 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: api: Introduce microverion 2.82 allowing boot from volume rescue https://review.opendev.org/701430 | |
| 12:58:17 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Extract _get_bdm_image_metadata into nova.utils https://review.opendev.org/705212 | |
| 14:17:02 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reduce gen conflict in COMPUTE_STATUS_DISABLED handling https://review.opendev.org/704866 | |
| 14:17:04 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Deprecate base rules in favor of new rules https://review.opendev.org/701624 | |
| 14:22:22 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Reduce gen conflict in COMPUTE_STATUS_DISABLED handling https://review.opendev.org/704866 | |
| 14:23:12 | gmann | cmurphy: updated the deprecation warning text. also replied on admin acrtion policy patch. | |
| 15:05:08 | dansmith | gibi: I replied just now | |
| 15:05:38 | dansmith | gibi: I think my original concerns are all still in place and "it's not as easy to check because of other bugs" doesn't really change my feeling on what is right | |
| 15:06:41 | dansmith | I shan't block on it, but I'm not loving it, nor really sure what the right thing to do is (other than fix those other things) | |
| 15:07:51 | dansmith | also, a decorator causing an instance lazy load is pretty gross :/ | |
| 15:11:17 | dansmith | and I'm not sure why flavor is being marked as dirty, because it seems like it shouldn't be from what I'm seeing... hmm.. | |
| 15:16:12 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: Disable NUMATopologyFilter on rebuild https://review.opendev.org/702973 | |
| 15:29:09 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing admin_password policies https://review.opendev.org/701629 | |
| 15:31:59 | gmann | melwitt: ^^ updated the admin password for user level enforcement tests. | |
| 15:32:21 | melwitt | gmann: cool thanks | |
| 15:33:51 | gmann | and i abandon this which were removing the user_id from policy target. test in 70629 should keep working for user enforcement through out the policy changes - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/701642/1 | |
| 15:34:27 | melwitt | k makes sense | |
| 15:43:28 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova stable/stein: FUP for in-place numa rebuild https://review.opendev.org/702974 | |
| 15:46:13 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Recalculate 'RequestSpec.numa_topology' on resize https://review.opendev.org/662522 | |
| 15:46:23 | melwitt | gmann: reviewing https://review.opendev.org/705135 I'm wondering if we should add a policy test for "fails with other project" (the testing that was originally missing the bug) | |
| 15:48:05 | gmann | melwitt: I am adding those in this where tests failing now and with this fix it should pass - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/705126/ | |
| 15:48:24 | gmann | i need to rebase that on top of fix to show the test passing. is that fine ? | |
| 15:48:37 | melwitt | yeah, was just about to ask that | |
| 15:49:00 | gmann | ok | |
| 15:49:41 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Fix os-attach-interfaces policy to be admin_or_owner https://review.opendev.org/705135 | |
| 15:49:52 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Remove old policy enforcement in attach_interfaces https://review.opendev.org/705127 | |
| 15:50:08 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add test coverage of existing attach_interfaces policies https://review.opendev.org/705126 | |
| 15:50:17 | gmann | done. | |
| 15:50:40 | melwitt | thanks! | |