| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-01-29 | |||
| 11:17:30 | johnthetubaguy | this in the past): https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/883411 | |
| 11:17:30 | johnthetubaguy | sean-k-mooney: I have reworded the commit message on this old patch, because it is now really urgent. We have a big regression on the Ironic driver after merging those convert to SDK patches, basically we lost the ability to retry on HTTP Conflict for the silly unplug_vif code. This old patch looks to fix the problem. It would be ace if you have chance to review this one please (you added some comments saying you wanted to look at | |
| 11:29:23 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Add ServersViewBuilderTestV296 unit test class https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939673 | |
| 11:32:51 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: so retrying on http conflict is not really a thing we shoudl do in general | |
| 11:33:38 | sean-k-mooney | a 409 means the request is invaild for the current state and we shoudl not expect resending it to work | |
| 11:34:54 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: with that said i dont crrently have the context of this patch loaded so i will take a look | |
| 11:39:01 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: i had previoulys agreed to allow fixign the current sate even thought he ironci workfow violates our driver api | |
| 11:39:30 | johnthetubaguy | [@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org)I agree with you, we should add more retry on conflict back in. But in this specific case, after we retry for around 15-30 mins, what we get is Bad request, and only then we consider the operation complete. Basically when unprovision has succeded, all the other work has already been done for us. | |
| 11:39:34 | sean-k-mooney | so johnthetubaguy with that in mind i assume you have tested this? | |
| 11:40:56 | sean-k-mooney | we do have a greeen ironic-tempest-ipa-wholedisk-bios-agent_ipmitool-tinyipa but that boot and deelete like 1 instance | |
| 11:41:09 | johnthetubaguy | [@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org)I haven't tested this on master, but it has been running in some old clouds for a while. I haven't heard back if this works on Caracal yet either I am afraid. Just had this reported to me yesterday evening internally. | |
| 11:41:22 | sean-k-mooney | so this obviouly does nto entrily break everythign but it does not validate that the node can be used again | |
| 11:41:49 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: ack | |
| 11:42:09 | johnthetubaguy | Sure, but we call unprovison, and that goes into either error or available, let me find that graph a sec in the ironic docs to check. | |
| 11:42:43 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: that not really the issue | |
| 11:43:02 | johnthetubaguy | OK, what bit are you worried about? I could easily be missing something? | |
| 11:43:58 | sean-k-mooney | so there are two conferns one is practically does this work which is what you were answering. and i trust you when you say that unprovision will do all the actions that cleanup_deploy does | |
| 11:44:57 | sean-k-mooney | the issue with that is ironic is not allow to modify neturon ports or cinder volume attachments assocated with a nova instnace. so it doing the cleanup as part of unprovision by makign api calls ironic si not allowed to do | |
| 11:45:25 | sean-k-mooney | so long term that is a probelem that shoudl be fixed | |
| 11:46:41 | johnthetubaguy | Ah, I was missing your concern before. Now I see what you mean. It is a “different dance” with Ironic, for sure. And we do hit issues because of the oddities going on there, e.g.: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2085432 | |
| 11:46:46 | sean-k-mooney | i agreed that we can move forward with the current state. that does not mean the current state is correct. i condier this to just be a workaround | |
| 11:48:45 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: well its not jsut that its also this https://security.openstack.org/ossa/OSSA-2023-003.html | |
| 11:49:11 | johnthetubaguy | I mean, this is Nova better respecting Ironic’s API semantics, in my book, but I don’t think we have connects on what we want it to look like. I know Ironic are keen to re-work the networking stack for their standalone cases, and making NGS suck much less would be ace… I should take a look at that soon ish. | |
| 11:50:01 | johnthetubaguy | Ah, so, volumes and Ironic, I mostly hard ignore myself. So that probably is an aspect we need someone to test better. Or at least get some lovely Ironic people to take a look at our reasoning here. | |
| 11:50:31 | sean-k-mooney | form my perspecitve ironci is not allwoed ot make any calls to neutorn or cinder for ports or volumes port are assocated with a nove instance | |
| 11:51:27 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: nova does not allow you to add/remove voluvmes or port to/form an instnace via the cidner/neutrion api inluciding createing/modifying volume attachments or port bindings | |
| 11:51:36 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: ironic is doign both | |
| 11:51:45 | johnthetubaguy | Yeah, true. | |
| 11:52:53 | sean-k-mooney | so unprovision in ironic should not be cleanign up the neutorn prots ro removing the volume attahcments | |
| 11:53:12 | sean-k-mooney | that shoudl be done by our generic code in the compute manager as part of the instance delete flow | |
| 11:53:51 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: anyway what importnt right now is this is impacting actual users | |
| 11:54:05 | sean-k-mooney | so we need to do the best we can in the current state | |
| 11:54:37 | sean-k-mooney | but if we have simialr CVEs in the future ironic integation may break | |
| 11:58:36 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for hosts APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937047 | |
| 11:58:37 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for hypervisors APIs (1/3) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937245 | |
| 11:58:37 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for instance actions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937048 | |
| 11:58:38 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for hypervisors APIs (3/3) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937247 | |
| 11:58:38 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for hypervisors APIs (2/3) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937246 | |
| 11:58:39 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for remote consoles https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940114 | |
| 11:58:39 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for server IPs APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/937608 | |
| 11:58:40 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for image metadata APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940299 | |
| 11:58:40 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for keypairs APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940115 | |
| 11:58:42 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: project/tenant and user IDs are not UUIDs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940369 | |
| 11:58:42 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for server topology API https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940300 | |
| 11:59:54 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: anyway +2 | |
| 12:00:48 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: there is another ironci change that you might want to take a look at if you feel like doing a review | |
| 12:01:16 | sean-k-mooney | it fixes a regression added in dalmation so you may not have hit it yet | |
| 12:03:29 | sean-k-mooney | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2092570 | |
| 12:03:42 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939411 | |
| 12:40:42 | johnthetubaguy | I will take a look now. | |
| 15:09:00 | johnthetubaguy | [@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@_oftc_sean-k-mooney:matrix.org)got distracted by chasing outage fun, but I am +2 that patch. I don't feel in-sync enough to +W right now, but that sure looks broken. I guess we don't test rebuild in that ironic CI you mentioned? | |
| 15:09:32 | johnthetubaguy | (as in we look broken without that patch) | |
| 15:09:48 | sean-k-mooney | we have exactly 1 job and it boot 1 vms and deletes it | |
| 15:09:53 | sean-k-mooney | so ya no rebuild testing | |
| 15:09:58 | sean-k-mooney | we really shoudl fix that... | |
| 15:10:30 | sean-k-mooney | this is a simple case where mypy and type checking would have saved use. we just mixed up the paramater order | |
| 15:10:57 | sean-k-mooney | johnthetubaguy: if no one else has ocmmend ill loop back and +w next week | |
| 15:11:33 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: looking at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924844 melwitt comment form pathset 18 have not been adressed | |
| 15:12:28 | kpdev | hi all, need review on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/927474 | |
| 15:12:44 | kpdev | I had also mentioned at https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bug-triage-20240904 | |
| 15:13:09 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: sorry https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924844/24 | |
| 15:14:01 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: i shoudl slow down https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/924844/24/nova/api/openstack/compute/remote_consoles.py the api change relate to the get_spice_console api that was remvoed in 2.6 | |
| 15:15:22 | sean-k-mooney | kpdev: that change is not valid | |
| 15:17:07 | kpdev | @sean-k-mooney: what is missing ? Can you please reply on pull request ? | |
| 15:17:23 | sean-k-mooney | the bug report is invliad | |
| 15:17:45 | sean-k-mooney | if we were to implemnt what you propsoe it would be a feature with a non tivial upgrade impact | |
| 15:19:54 | sean-k-mooney | kpdev: nova assumes that all cpus can be use by default, if that is not the case you are requried to use the [compute]cpu_shared_set and [compute]cpu_dedicated_set or the legacy [default]vcpu_pin_set to specify which cpu can be used | |
| 15:20:48 | sean-k-mooney | if your host cgroups are configure in such a way as they cannot be assigned to the vm becuase of the cpu_exclisve bit or otherwise and you do not use the provided config option that is not a nova bug | |
| 15:21:55 | kpdev | so you mean, using provided config option there is no need of this PR | |
| 15:22:42 | sean-k-mooney | correct i dont think this change is required if you correctly confire nova via the cpu_share_set | |
| 15:23:29 | sean-k-mooney | nova should not be parssing the cgoup configuration to determin which cpu can be used | |
| 15:23:42 | sean-k-mooney | the the installer shoudl be configuring that via the aviabel options | |
| 15:25:27 | kpdev | ok | |
| 15:26:48 | kpdev | I have added this on bug and update after checking with engineer | |
| 15:32:02 | sean-k-mooney | i have tiraged the bug as opipion, if you stongly feel that the ux should be imporved i think we would need to have a disgin dicussion on how before proceedign with this as a new feature | |
| 15:32:11 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think this is in the scope of nova to adress however | |
| 15:37:12 | kpdev | let me check internally as you are saying its not then in scope of nova to address. | |
| 15:43:07 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Add support for showing image properties in server show response https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939649 | |
| 16:26:06 | melwitt | sean-k-mooney: hey I just read your comment on the power management patch. are you saying that you think we should not be offlining CPU for STOPPED instances? | |
| 17:35:36 | opendevreview | Masahito Muroi proposed openstack/nova master: Use defaultdict object for request_specs_dict in the _list_view https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 | |
| 17:43:47 | opendevreview | Masahito Muroi proposed openstack/nova master: Use defaultdict object for request_specs_dict in the _list_view https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 | |
| 17:45:42 | masahito | gibi sean-k-mooney: thank you for the review for the patch. I did the further investigation for the current response value pattern. Please check the result and document update, too. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/939658 | |
| 18:47:00 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: I think you're saying you just want the changes to that file that you commented on removed? Is that right? | |
| 18:47:30 | sean-k-mooney | so im unsure | |
| 18:47:56 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: melwitt made a comment that that api was remvoed in 2.6 | |
| 18:48:01 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: IIRC Mel was confused by an old removed API and in the end I didn't need to do anything. I am trying to reload state on that file at the moment. | |
| 18:48:03 | sean-k-mooney | so we shoudl not need to update it | |
| 18:48:37 | sean-k-mooney | and as a result we likely dont need that addtional validation schema | |
| 18:48:51 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: yeah, Mel wanted a test for the HTTP GET on that API, which was removed. | |
| 18:49:06 | sean-k-mooney | because if you were to use the 2.5 microversion it shoudl not return the new spice console anyway | |
| 18:49:30 | sean-k-mooney | so it was removed in a micorversion but we did not remove the functionaltiy | |
| 18:49:51 | sean-k-mooney | if we did the funciton woudl be returnign a 410 | |
| 18:50:06 | melwitt | this sounds familiar and maybe I forgot to reply (and don't remember at the moment) | |
| 18:50:30 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: context is i started reviewing mikal spice console serise again yesterday | |
| 18:50:39 | sean-k-mooney | and noticed your comment did not seam to be adressed | |
| 18:51:18 | mikal | So I can revert the changes to that file. Honestly I'm not across the validation stuff much, but if you think that's correct I believe you. | |
| 18:51:25 | melwitt | ok, I'll take a look | |
| 18:52:22 | mikal | sean-k-mooney: I'm just removing the validation for the HTTP GET right, not the POST? | |
| 18:52:24 | sean-k-mooney | mikal: i think you can revert the changes to that file and also remove the other changes melwitt mention in ps 18 | |
| 18:52:47 | sean-k-mooney | i would also need ot load context | |