Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2021-11-05
12:05:07 EugenMayer One last question, is there an API based way to activate nested-virtualization on a VM? I use host-passthrough already, but not sure that is enough. I need this to run an ESXi which i soley run for image disk conversion
12:05:41 sean-k-mooney no nested virt will be avaiable to the vm automatically if the host is configured to allow it
12:06:23 sean-k-mooney on older kernel you use to have to set teh nested virt flag in the intel-kvm or amd-kvm kernel module options
12:06:39 sean-k-mooney in newer kernels it default to enabled so that is no longer required
12:07:10 sean-k-mooney EugenMayer: you can check by installing linbvirt in the guest and runnign virt-host-validate
12:07:32 sean-k-mooney or just look for vmx or svm on the amd side in lscpu in the guest i think
12:08:54 sean-k-mooney so ya if your host is set up correctly then it shoudl just work
12:10:06 sean-k-mooney with that said my expeirnce with nested virt is mainly kvm on kvm and limited expericne with windows(docker/linux subsystem) usecases
12:10:27 sean-k-mooney both of those can be made work in openstack but have never tired esxi
12:17:39 kashyap EugenMayer: sean-k-mooney: Nested is enabled only in the newer _upstream_ kernels, though.
12:17:50 kashyap Some distributions might not enable it by default
12:18:05 sean-k-mooney well its enabled on rhel for intel by default now but not for amd
12:18:19 kashyap EugenMayer: So check before you run. A handy tool is `virt-host-validate` (it'll check for a whole bunch of things, including /dev/kvm)
12:18:23 kashyap You can run it on a VM too
12:18:54 sean-k-mooney yep also said that above its pretty handy but not well advertised in my experince
12:19:00 kashyap sean-k-mooney: No, not even for RHEL for Intel
12:19:15 kashyap sean-k-mooney: RHEL made it tech preview for AMD *and* Intel.
12:19:50 kashyap There it is, public docs:
12:19:51 kashyap https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/configuring_and_managing_virtualization/creating-nested-virtual-machines_configuring-and-managing-virtualization
12:20:33 kashyap sean-k-mooney: Ah, I missed your virt-host-validate reference earlier; maybe we should include it in Nova docs somewhere too
12:20:51 sean-k-mooney well we retoactivly made it tech preview it was GA'd then we found issue on the intel support
12:21:36 EugenMayer thank you both - sorry was at dinner
12:21:59 kashyap Yes, I'm saying about the current status. "Retroactie" == well, if you spot blocker issues, then you must put it back to tech-preview
12:22:18 kashyap EugenMayer: No prob. In general, don't feel pressure to respond "instantly" on IRC
12:22:29 kashyap It's called "instant messaging"; not "instant responding" :D
12:23:36 EugenMayer if i get helped i tend to keep myself as 'instant responding' - but not anybody else. If find this somewhat respecting the time of the answer-giver (what ever that word is:) )
12:24:09 kashyap Yes, sure. That's contextual
12:24:13 EugenMayer i currently run debian:bullseye with the stable kernel 5.10, will check what status it has and maybe upgrade to backports or spin up an compute on a different OS
12:24:42 kashyap EugenMayer: Some 7 years ago I wrote this thing, because we used to a see a lot of "naked pings" - https://www.rdoproject.org/contribute/irc-etiquette/
12:25:01 sean-k-mooney EugenMayer: i think the change was made upstream after 5.10 in 5.14 so with 5.10 it might still be disabel by default
12:27:57 EugenMayer kashyap laters!
12:28:15 EugenMayer sean-k-mooney https://packages.debian.org/bullseye-backports/linux-image-amd64 so 5.14 could be it
13:39:14 opendevreview Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: nova-next: Deploy noVNC from source instead of packages https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816738
13:55:41 opendevreview Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: nova-next: Deploy noVNC from source instead of packages https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816738
16:07:45 dansmith gmann: if I have a policy rule with a specific scope_types= set, and then I override that rule with enforcer.set_rules({}) do you know what happens to the scope_types from the default?
16:08:26 dansmith it seems like they are being kept through the override (which I would expect), but that's preventing me from overriding some rules to @ in the tests, like check_image before check_image:allow_volume_backed
16:08:28 dansmith lbragstad: ^
16:10:55 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: [Trival] Fix wrong microversion in TestClass name https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816778
16:13:19 lbragstad dansmith i think you're right in that it shouldn't override the scope_type
16:13:56 dansmith okay, so some of the tests we have hit two policies, and the tests try to @ the first one to make sure we test the second one,
16:14:15 dansmith but in the case of the "what happens when we enable scope checking" tests, I'm not sure how to get past that
16:14:28 lbragstad oh...
16:14:37 dansmith other than to just assume that scope violations get caught by the first one
16:15:19 lbragstad the only way i could think of doing that today would be re-register the rules so that you can reset the scope type of the one you want to pass through
16:15:26 lbragstad but that sounds clunky
16:15:42 dansmith yeah
16:16:11 lbragstad what's the scope_type for check_image, project?
16:16:14 dansmith or mock the enforce with a side_effect=[skip(), orig()]
16:16:48 dansmith it was both (of course, like all of them) but I'm moving it back to just project since it's on an instance
16:16:54 dansmith (and it's create_image, typo above)
16:17:32 lbragstad ah
16:17:42 dansmith the tests allow me to skip the check that makes sure it's the exact rule name that triggers the failure,
16:18:08 dansmith so I could just do that, but it kinda sidesteps the actual verification (although only for the system: contexts, which isn't so bad)
16:18:14 lbragstad and you want to test the second check fails with a system-scoped token?
16:18:32 dansmith I mean it would still ensure the behavior, it's just that the tests currently disable the first check with @ to hit the second for all the context
16:18:46 dansmith just trying to change as little as possible about the test behavior of course
16:18:56 dansmith maybe I'll just put a #NOTE in there and leave it for review
16:19:09 lbragstad sure - and that's not necessarily realistic given the discussions the other day
16:22:38 dansmith https://termbin.com/z7yz
16:22:40 dansmith this ^ works
16:23:14 dansmith so we keep the strict checking for the non-scope-enforcing case, but relax it (as allowed by common_policy_check()) if we are scope-obsessed
16:24:25 dansmith oh you know, I could use the base rule name instead of none to be even more explicit
16:24:30 dansmith actual = "Policy doesn't allow os_compute_api:servers:create_image to be performed."
16:24:30 dansmith reference = "Policy doesn't allow os_compute_api:servers:create_image:allow_volume_backed to be performed."
16:24:30 dansmith testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: !=:
16:24:30 dansmith the problem is I would get this from the checker:
16:24:46 dansmith because we failed on the earlier check before we got to create_image:allow_volume_backed
16:26:45 dansmith anyway, I'm mostly just talking to myself out loud at this point :)
16:29:42 lbragstad yeah - that makes sense
16:30:44 lbragstad i guess my question now is if we think nesting checks like that is going to be a common pattern, or a one off thing here and there
16:31:34 lbragstad feels like a one-off thing
16:32:14 dansmith it's more a result of nova's test pattern as anything
16:32:19 dansmith but yeah I'll see as I keep going through it
16:33:22 lbragstad if it's common, i think we should have a better answer for it?
16:33:30 lbragstad or potentially consolidate the checks
16:34:08 dansmith yup
16:43:22 opendevreview Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: [doc] propose Review-Priority label for contribs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/816861
16:50:49 gmann dansmith: lbragstad yeah, we have this type of multi policy enforcement in nova and I think in neutron there are many.
16:51:16 gmann but do we have mixed type of scope_type in such multi policy in single API?
16:51:32 gmann that sounds not correct if we do have
16:51:43 dansmith gmann: so far that hypervisors "give a different view for projecty people" is the only multi-scope one I know of
16:52:08 gmann dansmith: or it is different APIs like resource creation for GET test etc
16:53:22 gmann dansmith: lbragstad I am thinking to allow tests to disable (set to None) the scope_type but yes only for testing
16:53:32 dansmith gmann: yeah, let me continue through more of this to see how many are a problem
16:54:05 dansmith gmann: yeah, maybe, or just ensure that a system token gets stopped at the parent policy check
16:54:05 gmann dansmith: in nova case where it is unit tests we can handle with mocking API controller method itself if it is different APIs.
16:56:09 gmann yeah with switching the CONF.encorce_scope to false first and then true
17:06:47 dansmith gmann: yeah, index:get_all_tenants and index are in the same boat :/
17:08:47 gmann dansmith: you mean with the new direction or existing scope_type?
17:09:08 gmann but in both case anyone allow to do index:get_all_tenants should be allow to do index right?
17:09:15 dansmith gmann: I mean checking index before index:get_all_tenants and failing the scope check
17:09:32 dansmith gmann: that's not the problem
17:09:34 gmann but both are same scope_type
17:09:58 dansmith gmann: the problem is that both aren't allowed for system:* but we'll fail on the first one before we get to the second one, even if we set the check_str=*
17:09:58 gmann oh no, sorry
17:10:30 dansmith it's not actually a problem because as you mention, their scope restriction will be the same, it's just a matter of verification in the tests
17:10:39 gmann yeah
17:10:43 dansmith let me propose a change to common_policy_check and see what you think
17:10:51 gmann +1
17:15:33 gibi bottom line: ospurge works and can be used but it does not handle default security group yet.

Earlier   Later