| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-04-15 | |||
| 13:25:32 | sean-k-mooney | sorry was distracted ill read scrollback | |
| 13:28:05 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well we jsut dont have schduling support | |
| 13:29:18 | sean-k-mooney | you can sort of force it to work by mapping AZs to routed segments but that is a pain and a hack | |
| 13:29:56 | sean-k-mooney | if you map an AZ to a segment then the fact we dont live migrate across AZs by default make it work fine provided you use ip_allocaiton=deffered | |
| 13:30:44 | efried | sean-k-mooney, gibi: I sure would like to see the provider yaml feature land. It's something we've talked about for years and years, and it's the first step toward being able to do PCI passthrough whitelisting+configuration properly. If you're still planning to represent PCI devices as child providers _ever_, you're going to want it or something like it. And the current work is *so* close. | |
| 13:31:19 | efried | tbc, my position on this is not related to employer, but to what I see as the right direction for nova | |
| 13:31:42 | sean-k-mooney | efried: yep althouhg i dont really like how we are doing to modeling if we are going to use it for pci if im being totally honest | |
| 13:31:54 | sean-k-mooney | that said its not awful either | |
| 13:32:09 | sean-k-mooney | its just missing the corralation to the actul devices | |
| 13:32:18 | sean-k-mooney | which could be added in a later schema version | |
| 13:32:35 | efried | oh, as written it's not ready for PCI yet, for sure. | |
| 13:33:04 | efried | we dialed back to the bare bones to get a mvp that would fit in a cycle | |
| 13:33:52 | sean-k-mooney | efried: my alternitve spec for this feature start with pci modeling as the MVP with what the current feature does as out of scope | |
| 13:34:02 | sean-k-mooney | well kind of | |
| 13:34:14 | sean-k-mooney | anyway i do think its worth completing give how close it is | |
| 13:34:42 | sean-k-mooney | efried: would you remind removing your -2 on the bottom patch and maybe gibi could add his | |
| 13:35:06 | sean-k-mooney | so that we dont need to find you to do that when we get to victoria | |
| 13:35:16 | bauzas | stephenfin: i'd appreciate some reviews of https://review.opendev.org/#/c/712741/2 btw. | |
| 13:35:38 | efried | oh, I have a -2? Fixing... | |
| 13:35:59 | sean-k-mooney | efried: it was a procedual one | |
| 13:36:13 | bauzas | efried: my only concers with the providers YAML file is that it makes the DSL so placement-specific... | |
| 13:36:31 | bauzas | I'd have appreciate some kind of abstraction | |
| 13:36:38 | sean-k-mooney | well its a yaml file for modeling things in placement | |
| 13:36:47 | sean-k-mooney | but that is a fair observation | |
| 13:36:56 | openstackgerrit | Marcin Juszkiewicz proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: check for AMD SEV only on x86-64 https://review.opendev.org/714425 | |
| 13:37:01 | sean-k-mooney | efried: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/673341/42 | |
| 13:37:14 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: I know | |
| 13:37:22 | hrw | fixed pep8 | |
| 13:37:28 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: and I reviewed the spec, I think i even left a +2 on it | |
| 13:37:35 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: but my concern remains | |
| 13:37:49 | efried | sean-k-mooney, gibi: removed the -2 | |
| 13:37:58 | gibi | efried: tanks | |
| 13:38:01 | gibi | thanks | |
| 13:38:11 | bauzas | i think we mostly have a consensus about to leaking all the request group syntax into our flavor extraspecs | |
| 13:38:16 | bauzas | about not* | |
| 13:38:32 | bauzas | I'd appreciate if we could do the same for inventories | |
| 13:38:33 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: want to replace it with a procedual one since we are past code freeze and this need to be reporposed | |
| 13:38:56 | sean-k-mooney | or we can just leave it since we all know its for Victoria at this point | |
| 13:39:02 | efried | bauzas: well, it's not really that provider yaml is using a placement abstraction. It's that we designed placement with an abstraction and are using that same abstraction for other things (including cyborg and bw). Also worth noting that the *provider* yaml is completely targeted at *providers* which are a placement thing... | |
| 13:39:35 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well i want to remove the request groups form the flavor extra specs entirely | |
| 13:39:39 | bauzas | efried: I don't disagree hence my +2 on the spec | |
| 13:39:49 | efried | there's no request group syntax in provider yaml. That wouldn't make sense. | |
| 13:39:53 | bauzas | efried: I'm just saying we need to keep it crystal-clear for ops | |
| 13:39:57 | efried | ++ | |
| 13:40:14 | sean-k-mooney | efried: ya i think bauzas was just concerned about how the resouce would be consumed | |
| 13:40:32 | sean-k-mooney | they may be tempeted to use the request group syntax in the falvor | |
| 13:40:53 | bauzas | efried: the request group syntax was an example about how things could become difficult if we expose them thru extrasepcs | |
| 13:41:06 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: correct | |
| 13:41:44 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I will simply leave it as is, I trust the cores that they will not approve it | |
| 13:42:38 | efried | Yes, I agree it would be nice if we could close the door on direct rg syntax in extra specs. (Recall I advocated hard for using flavor-ese rather than placement-ese wherever possible. Dan pushed back at least wrt non-granular and I capitulated; but granular is still worth fighting for imo.) | |
| 13:42:50 | gibi | bauzas: re-acquire the bug triage lock for bugs in New state | |
| 13:43:18 | bauzas | gibi: I had to jump on a mandatory training course I have to do by today EOB | |
| 13:43:27 | bauzas | about 'open hybrid cloud' | |
| 13:43:46 | bauzas | where I'm teached about what is 'cloud' and 'cloud computing' | |
| 13:43:57 | gibi | I'm sorry for you | |
| 13:44:06 | sean-k-mooney | for what its worth this was my proposal for how to do this which had much less of a direct use of placmenet semantics https://review.opendev.org/#/c/603805/2/specs/stein/approved/device-discovery-policy-lib.rst | |
| 13:44:19 | bauzas | gibi: honestly, it's not really for today, I'm exagerating | |
| 13:44:20 | sean-k-mooney | still used resouce classes and trait but that was it | |
| 13:44:37 | bauzas | gibi: but I don't like having paperwork like this to slip over time | |
| 13:54:55 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce scope_types in servers attributes Policies https://review.opendev.org/719729 | |
| 13:57:43 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/nova master: Add new default roles in servers attributes policies https://review.opendev.org/719730 | |
| 14:10:51 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1862477 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "API returns 401 for /v2.1 (when no auth provided)" [Undecided,Confirmed] | |
| 14:10:51 | gibi | nova API experts I need help what would be the expected behavior for the quering GET /v2.1 and GET /v2.1/ without a token. As per https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1862477 | |
| 14:11:13 | gibi | alex_xu, gmann, dansmith ^^ | |
| 14:11:28 | bauzas | gibi: AFAIK you get the routes | |
| 14:11:53 | bauzas | gibi: lemme find the right thing | |
| 14:12:22 | gibi | I think we have an inconsistency between /v2.1 and / and between with token and without token | |
| 14:12:29 | gibi | see my comment in the review | |
| 14:12:30 | bauzas | gibi: yeah you're right with the triage I think | |
| 14:12:33 | gibi | in the bug | |
| 14:12:50 | bauzas | actually sec | |
| 14:12:58 | gibi | bauzas: is this something we broke recently? | |
| 14:13:06 | bauzas | gibi: no I don't think | |
| 14:13:13 | dansmith | I think efried and mordred just changed something about this, no? | |
| 14:13:17 | bauzas | gibi: I just wonder whether we should return 401 by design or no | |
| 14:13:36 | dansmith | fwiw, I've never understood why we should return *anything* to an unauthorized client | |
| 14:13:44 | bauzas | but I tend to say we should accept the root page even for the /v2.1 document | |
| 14:14:18 | efried | dansmith: yes, we recently merged a couple of fixes related to getting version discovery docs unauthenticated. Finding... | |
| 14:14:21 | bauzas | / et /v2.1 are two different resources in my mind | |
| 14:14:37 | efried | dansmith: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685181/ | |
| 14:14:42 | dansmith | gibi: ^ | |
| 14:14:46 | gibi | thanks | |
| 14:14:47 | bauzas | / is the root page, I'm okay with not asking to be auth'd to see it | |
| 14:15:04 | efried | The versioned discovery docs also need to not require auth. | |
| 14:15:07 | bauzas | /v2.1 is an endpoint, I could understand we would require to be auth'd | |
| 14:15:30 | gibi | hold on, that patch is newer than my devstack | |
| 14:15:56 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: i dont think we should assume that all endpoint need auth | |
| 14:16:06 | bauzas | I don't know what to say | |
| 14:16:15 | bauzas | it's just a design decision | |
| 14:16:20 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: we should contol it via policy | |
| 14:16:36 | sean-k-mooney | and i think the default policy for /2.1 should be no auth | |
| 14:16:45 | sean-k-mooney | for version discovery to work | |
| 14:16:46 | bauzas | I think I entered a rathole, STEP BACK, STEP BACK !!! | |
| 14:16:53 | gibi | I will test those queries with the above patch applied | |
| 14:17:11 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1862477 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "API returns 401 for /v2.1 (when no auth provided)" [Undecided,Confirmed] | |
| 14:17:11 | efried | Oh, yeah, https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1862477 should be resolved via the above patch. | |
| 14:17:18 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: yeah you make sense | |
| 14:17:46 | efried | ...as well as the two bugs tagged in the commit message. | |
| 14:17:56 | bauzas | gibi: mark it as duplicate of https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1862477 AFAICS | |
| 14:18:20 | bauzas | gibi: want me to do it ? | |