| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2020-04-27 | |||
| 14:50:50 | dansmith | I've never seen it deployed in yaml file on a real system | |
| 14:50:51 | bnemec | I think the default is still JSON though. | |
| 14:51:11 | bnemec | IIRC, some service actually overrides that default so they get YAML by default. | |
| 14:51:13 | zigo | bnemec: Last time I tried, maybe 2 or 3 releases ago, it didn't work. | |
| 14:51:31 | zigo | Commented yaml would work for me. | |
| 14:51:44 | dansmith | zigo: except we can't require people to convert that as part of an upgrade | |
| 14:51:51 | bnemec | It's always possible there's a bug. YAML is definitely supposed to work. | |
| 14:52:03 | dansmith | bnemec: do any CI jobs use yaml? | |
| 14:53:10 | gmann | one things we can do is always add deprecated rule from oslopolicy-sample-generator | |
| 14:53:22 | dansmith | just checked one I had handy and the only service with a policy file is neutron, and it's json | |
| 14:53:38 | dansmith | gmann: but ... people with existing policy files can't be broken by this upgrade | |
| 14:53:42 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova stable/rocky: DNM: Add a placement audit command https://review.opendev.org/720842 | |
| 14:53:56 | gmann | but again not all people use this or some other way to generate file like editing the old file | |
| 14:54:52 | gmann | dansmith: true, existing policy should not break, here zigo case is it get generated newly with oslo tool which had new defaults but not deprecated | |
| 14:55:23 | dansmith | gmann: I'm still trying to understand if people with a train-generated full policy file are going to be broken | |
| 14:55:30 | dansmith | I've not understood your answers there | |
| 14:55:31 | gmann | if it is not re-generated then old policy keep working in both case 1. they have override different rule 2. or reply on default even have rule in fule | |
| 14:55:40 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Add an online migration for PciDevice.uuid https://review.opendev.org/530905 | |
| 14:55:40 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Modify PciDevice.uuid generation code https://review.opendev.org/530487 | |
| 14:55:53 | nightmare_unreal | what can cause nova-live-migration zuul build to fail ?? | |
| 14:55:54 | gmann | dansmith: train generated file should keep working as it is. | |
| 14:56:53 | gmann | what happened here is, policy file is generated freshly which had new 'system rule' but token are not refreshed | |
| 14:57:01 | dansmith | gmann: what if someone's deploy script generates the file from the tooling, applies their two or three rule tweaks? then they're broken? | |
| 14:57:50 | dansmith | I see, the broken part is because the newly generated file will be rules that require scoped tokens or whatever? | |
| 14:57:57 | gmann | dansmith: and they have other rule with new value present in file then broken. and that is case that they have override the rule but token not refreshed | |
| 14:58:08 | gmann | dansmith: correct | |
| 14:58:25 | bnemec | Right. This is why the deprecated rule behavior ORs with the old rule. | |
| 14:58:29 | gmann | train policy will still have adimin_rule and keep working | |
| 14:58:45 | dansmith | gmann: okay, understand why train configs still work, which is good | |
| 14:59:04 | dansmith | gmann: I would expect the generate-then-tweak process is fairly widespread | |
| 14:59:32 | zigo | dansmith: Yes, "then they're broken" ... | |
| 14:59:35 | gmann | humm and generate with 'oslopolicy-sample-generator' tool right ? | |
| 14:59:40 | zigo | (ie: my case...) | |
| 14:59:49 | zigo | Which I think is really wrong. | |
| 15:00:11 | openstackgerrit | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: objects: Add online migration for legacy NUMA objects https://review.opendev.org/537414 | |
| 15:00:15 | gmann | i mean we can explicitly add deprecated rule in that tool logic. but not sure if that solve all the cases | |
| 15:00:30 | dansmith | gmann: yes | |
| 15:00:49 | AJaeger | any nova core available for two tiny cleanups related to Babel/translations, please? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723206/2 and https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720725/1 ? | |
| 15:00:55 | dansmith | I dunno what to do about this though, since it's really a problem spread across multiple projects, lots of code, and some human assumptions | |
| 15:01:13 | bnemec | We can't always do that though or there's no way for deployers to get the new rule alone. | |
| 15:01:30 | zigo | dansmith: I also expect the generated-then-not-touched case is also fairly widespread (my case in my CI) and it is broken as well currently. | |
| 15:01:42 | gmann | as per my expectation, 'generate-then-tweak ' case also need operator review if something auto-re-generated is ok or not | |
| 15:01:42 | dansmith | zigo: yup | |
| 15:01:57 | dansmith | gmann: not if they don't know they need to review | |
| 15:02:07 | dansmith | gmann: they could have been doing this approach for years with no problem | |
| 15:02:12 | bnemec | Is this on a fresh install? If so, why isn't everything configured to handle the new policies? | |
| 15:02:12 | gmann | humm | |
| 15:02:28 | dansmith | bnemec: no, not necessarily fresh deploy | |
| 15:02:34 | zigo | I very much agree that it's the operator's responsibility to refresh the policy.json and re-tweak it carefully on each upgrade. | |
| 15:02:43 | gmann | dansmith: they had same problem when policy was deprecated. here we did all policy changed instead of one or two | |
| 15:03:19 | dansmith | gmann: you mean when the full policy file was deprecated? | |
| 15:03:20 | bnemec | I mean, that deployment method hasn't been recommended since policy in code went in however many years ago. | |
| 15:03:29 | dansmith | AFAIK, plenty of people never migrated to empty policy files | |
| 15:03:37 | zigo | bnemec: On a *fresh* install, with the currently default generated policy.json, things a broken. That's the issue I've reported to begin with! :) | |
| 15:03:52 | dansmith | bnemec: but not everyone likes that, and distros still generate full policy files, which is why we're here | |
| 15:04:01 | gmann | dansmith: for example, single policy was changed in some cycle. | |
| 15:04:20 | bnemec | So that's a problem anyway. Ussuri installs should be configured correctly to handle the new policy. | |
| 15:04:31 | dansmith | gmann: which is why it's quite likely that people's deployment scripts moved to generate-and-tweak.. like, generate and then sed, sed, sed | |
| 15:04:38 | bnemec | Even if we include the deprecated rules in the generated policy, it just pushes the breakage off one release. | |
| 15:04:56 | gmann | i mean that was always problem in past also. | |
| 15:05:04 | dansmith | bnemec: but it involves a change in user behavior right? | |
| 15:05:05 | dansmith | they have to now get scoped tokens? | |
| 15:05:14 | bnemec | Once the deprecated rule is dropped in the subsequent release you break then instead of now. | |
| 15:05:34 | bnemec | I think that's only true if enforce_scope is true. | |
| 15:05:41 | gmann | true, scope token in this case and changed in admin->non-admin etc in past | |
| 15:05:53 | dansmith | but that's the whole reason we're here, because zigo is taking all the defaults, and it's broken | |
| 15:06:02 | dansmith | bnemec: ^ | |
| 15:06:25 | gmann | 'taking all the defaults' not default but only new default without deprecated things. | |
| 15:06:44 | gmann | 'default' still mean 'new + old' | |
| 15:07:17 | dansmith | gmann: sorry I don't understand those two comments | |
| 15:07:25 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1875418 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "Generated policy.json in Ussuri is broken by default" [Undecided,New] | |
| 15:07:25 | zigo | Bug filled: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1875418 | |
| 15:07:31 | stephenfin | zigo: why can't we just stop including a generated policy file in the package? | |
| 15:07:49 | dansmith | he can, he said that | |
| 15:07:50 | zigo | stephenfin: How are operators supposed to double-guess what they can use? | |
| 15:07:55 | gmann | dansmith: i mean current defaults are "new default + old deprecated defaults" and file generated was half bald with 'new defaults' only | |
| 15:08:21 | zigo | stephenfin: That's actually exactly what I'll be doing: provide an empty policy.json. But that's really not user friendly. | |
| 15:08:29 | stephenfin | zigo: You have a openstack-nova-doc package, yeah? It's documented in there | |
| 15:08:41 | zigo | stephenfin: I'd very much prefer having a policy.json that reflects what's currently enforced in Nova. | |
| 15:08:46 | gmann | i might be wrong but re-generating the policy file is something you are intentionally changing so adopt all change instead of half | |
| 15:08:53 | dansmith | stephenfin: he's saying that's a sucky user experience, and he's right despite how clean it seems to us | |
| 15:10:13 | gmann | and this is always a problem from starting if deployer rely on re-generated file which does not include the deprecated-but-supported rule | |
| 15:10:13 | dansmith | gmann: before this, generating the file and tweaking the rules you want ended up with all things at the same generation. If you tweaked a rule that we removed, then sure it's broken, but now people will be introducing old "syntax" to a generated file of new "syntax", and also not realize that as soon as they generate the file, they need scoped tokens right? | |
| 15:10:16 | zigo | stephenfin: Just did that and uploaded the package: https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/services/nova/-/commit/48bc8889ae8a787104b76e95c3e1dfc5893d146b | |
| 15:11:20 | zigo | Though really, that's really not user friendly to do that. | |
| 15:11:24 | gmann | dansmith: right. | |
| 15:11:51 | dansmith | gmann: so another question.. if I don't take the generated file, continue to run with the deprecated defaults, but need to tweak something.. how do I see the generated old defaults file? is there a flag to the tool? or do I have to look at train docs? | |
| 15:11:59 | gmann | but how to fix all those script to generate file, we can do something on oslopolicy-sample-generator | |
| 15:12:11 | stephenfin | zigo: Forgive me but is that not the normal way config files work? They're used for overrides, not defaults | |
| 15:12:51 | dansmith | stephenfin: but they're usually fully commented-out so you can see all the options in place while you're overriding | |
| 15:12:54 | zigo | stephenfin: If I'm listening to you, then my Nova package should ship an empty /etc/nova/nova.conf? Are you serious ?!? | |
| 15:13:02 | zigo | :) | |
| 15:13:06 | gmann | dansmith: train doc, or nova policy reference file. | |
| 15:13:16 | dansmith | gmann: that sucks | |
| 15:13:30 | gmann | yeah, tool is not adding them | |
| 15:13:43 | zigo | I think I'll give another try with the yaml thing, see if that works, and if I can ship a fully commented out one. | |
| 15:14:10 | zigo | That's still not nice, because it'd be supposed to work if all comments get removed ... If you know what I mean. | |
| 15:14:13 | dansmith | zigo: do you treat policy like config or what? what if they've modified their policy file? | |
| 15:14:20 | stephenfin | zigo: Not empty, but IMO we shouldn't be including values with defaults ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ | |
| 15:14:25 | zigo | Just same as in for nova.conf, where commented out stuff are supposed to be the default. | |