| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-01-19 | |||
| 16:38:15 | fwiesel | swift_store_multi_tenant=True is another edge case | |
| 16:38:39 | womax` | ok, i'll start drafting and come back when it is ready, to discuss more in details | |
| 16:38:59 | tkajinam | sounds nice :-) | |
| 16:40:51 | Uggla | Are we ok with that topic ? womax` ? | |
| 16:41:06 | womax` | Uggla: yes | |
| 16:41:30 | Uggla | ok so nicolairuckel, please go ahead with your topic | |
| 16:41:49 | nicolairuckel | I was wondering if it makes sense to move the discussion about how to deal with secure boot and resetting the NVRAM (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682?tab=comments) from my patch to another place. This is relevant for cold migration which we excluded from my patch. The discussion is of course important for my (hopefully) next patch but I'm not sure where to put that/how to deal with that. | |
| 16:41:51 | nicolairuckel | Unless it is a blocker for my current patch of course. Last week it sounded like we need to discuss that beforehand but after reading the comments I'm not so sure anymore. | |
| 16:47:15 | Uggla | nicolairuckel my understanding, your patch just need a small addendum: prohibiting migration with os_secure_boot='optional' is an option. per haps its a suffience one for the short term | |
| 16:47:54 | nicolairuckel | I thought that's only an issue for cold migration. | |
| 16:48:27 | tkajinam | no it also affects bare hard reboot and hard reboot after live migration. | |
| 16:49:09 | nicolairuckel | Ah, somehow I missed that. | |
| 16:49:12 | nicolairuckel | Thank you. | |
| 16:49:17 | nicolairuckel | I'll work on that then. | |
| 16:49:18 | tkajinam | I think the point is that it's difficult to fix these all. I think we need an agreement about what we accept while fixing an annoying reset behavior | |
| 16:49:26 | Uggla | I don't think so, it seems something sean-k-mooney would like to have for this patch and then another one with a long term solution. | |
| 16:50:16 | nicolairuckel | But then it makes sense to have the discussion there and we don't really need to discuss that here. | |
| 16:50:27 | sean-k-mooney | oh o/ | |
| 16:50:29 | sean-k-mooney | reading back | |
| 16:51:04 | nicolairuckel | i just missed that there's actually something else I need to do before the review can continue. | |
| 16:51:10 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: honestly i think the os_secure_boot=optional stuff is out of scope | |
| 16:51:31 | sean-k-mooney | for the initall reboot patch | |
| 16:51:51 | sean-k-mooney | that was just ment to fix preserving the nvram file for hard reboot nothing more or less | |
| 16:52:32 | Uggla | ok | |
| 16:52:37 | nicolairuckel | Then my original point still stands that the discussion should be at another place, right? So we can merge the patch but don't lose the discussion in the process. I mean, it would still be there but kind of the wrong place. | |
| 16:52:52 | nicolairuckel | I'm just not sure how to proceed at the moment. | |
| 16:56:11 | sean-k-mooney | hard reboot in my opion shoudl nto change the secure boot state of the vm. that ideally woudl be fixed when the vm was first booted and stay the ame for its lifetime or only change on a resize or rebuild | |
| 16:56:34 | sean-k-mooney | im aware that not what happens today but i woudl prefer not to expand the nvram bug with fixing that | |
| 16:57:22 | sean-k-mooney | idealaly we woudl deal with os_secure_boot=optional as its own bug what ever way we decied to proceed with that | |
| 16:59:57 | tkajinam | sounds reasonable to me | |
| 17:00:03 | Uggla | nicolairuckel is that clarify your thoughts ? | |
| 17:01:03 | nicolairuckel | I think so. Then we create a new bug and leave the patch as is? | |
| 17:01:23 | nicolairuckel | Unless something comes up during the review of course. | |
| 17:01:36 | Uggla | yep that's my understanding. | |
| 17:01:39 | sean-k-mooney | that works for me but lets actully file the bug before proceedign with the patch | |
| 17:02:03 | Uggla | yep so we can relate to it | |
| 17:02:16 | sean-k-mooney | if we want to chat about that second bug we can do so briefly after teh meetign wraps | |
| 17:02:30 | nicolairuckel | sounds good to me. Who will file the bug? | |
| 17:02:51 | Uggla | nicolairuckel, if you are confortable to do it, that would be great. | |
| 17:04:48 | Uggla | Ok we are at the to of the hour. So I guess we can close that meeting. | |
| 17:05:08 | Uggla | Thanks for joining this meeting. Have a nice day/evening and see you next week. | |
| 17:05:21 | opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-01-19-16.02.log.html | |
| 17:05:21 | opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-01-19-16.02.txt | |
| 17:05:21 | opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/nova/2026/nova.2026-01-19-16.02.html | |
| 17:05:21 | opendevmeet | Meeting ended Mon Jan 19 17:05:21 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:05:21 | Uggla | #endmeeting | |
| 17:05:24 | gibi | thanks | |
| 17:06:01 | Uggla | no time for bug triage... I guess I need to find another way to address that topic. | |
| 17:06:12 | tkajinam | One thing I'd add about CI. Python 3.13 job was moved from Ubuntu Noble to Debian Trixie. it may cause some problems in python 3.13 jobs | |
| 17:06:31 | tkajinam | so far I'm aware that py313 job in python-novaclient is broken and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/973846 fixes it | |
| 17:06:55 | Uggla | tkajinam, thanks for the info ! | |
| 17:07:19 | tkajinam | (the migration was done only in master. py313 job in stable branches still runs in Noble) | |
| 17:07:37 | tkajinam | so it's better to keep eyes on py313 jobs for a while | |
| 17:07:56 | tkajinam | I mean openstack-tox-py313 and any jobs inheriting it | |
| 17:08:00 | nicolairuckel | I think it would make sense if tkajinam files the bug as he knows more about it but of course I can also write something and then update it with feedback from tkajinam and sean-k-mooney. I'm fine either way. | |
| 17:08:02 | sean-k-mooney | i think that woudl only cause issues if we had bindep problems like how we define pcre as a dep | |
| 17:08:23 | tkajinam | sean-k-mooney, yup | |
| 17:08:31 | sean-k-mooney | i could be wrong about that but it is good to keep an eye on the py313 job in any case | |
| 17:09:10 | sean-k-mooney | so for the secure boot optional case i have 2 tought on it | |
| 17:09:46 | sean-k-mooney | as i noted above i think the fact we dont fix the behavior on first boot is arguabel a but but that does not mean there is not merit in the current behavior | |
| 17:10:05 | sean-k-mooney | my concern with it ever changign after the workload is created is basiclly it can break the geust os if it does | |
| 17:10:38 | sean-k-mooney | my other tought on this is dan mention that the ver all interaction is starting to get complex enough that perhaps we need a spec to defien the behvior longterm | |
| 17:11:05 | sean-k-mooney | the guiding principal for nova is alwasy "what woudl the behvior be if this was a physical system" | |
| 17:11:35 | sean-k-mooney | on a phsyical system rebooting host or movign it form one rack to another woudl nto change the bios config or the nvram | |
| 17:11:59 | tkajinam | nicolairuckel, I can create one later this week | |
| 17:12:00 | sean-k-mooney | however if you were reinstallign the OS you might do that | |
| 17:12:37 | sean-k-mooney | and if you are cahngign the hardware you might do that too. so rebuild and resize coudl be valid point to change the secure boot config in my view | |
| 17:13:17 | sean-k-mooney | hard reboot or cold/live migrate dont fit with the "what woudl happen with a real server" lithmus test if the secure boot or nvram sate chagnes | |
| 17:13:19 | nicolairuckel | thank you, tkajinam. Let me know if I can help/contribute. | |
| 17:13:58 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: nicolairuckel that the critia im trying to apply if that makes sense. | |
| 17:14:13 | nicolairuckel | yes, that makes sense to me | |
| 17:15:11 | tkajinam | sean-k-mooney, cold migration is most problematic. because it basically inherits resize which assumes that the instance can be rebuilt... | |
| 17:15:13 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: in the short term we could provide a workaround flag to block cold/live migration with os_secure_boot=optional or we could record the current state somewhere say in instnace_system_netadata and ensure it does not change when we do migrate | |
| 17:16:07 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: ya, the other wrinkel is we can preserve the nvram if its there but unfrotuanlly that is not enough to tell us if we need to enable secure boot or not in the xml | |
| 17:16:17 | tkajinam | makes sense | |
| 17:17:12 | sean-k-mooney | that why we need to stash the state somewhere in the cold migrate and shelve/unshelve case | |
| 17:17:40 | sean-k-mooney | shelve/unshelve today loses the nvram so it will regenerate it regardless today | |
| 17:18:03 | tkajinam | another scenario I still have to consider in additiona to os_firmware_secure='optional' is the case where a different firmware is selected after hard reboot but I'll give more thoughts to it. | |
| 17:18:07 | sean-k-mooney | but again preserving it is out of scope fo the iniall reboot bug | |
| 17:18:21 | tkajinam | an annoying thing is that it's not clear how these firmware files are updated (due to no documentation about their update policy) | |
| 17:19:08 | sean-k-mooney | right the frimware itself and the base tempelates are part of the ovmf package i bleive | |
| 17:19:15 | tkajinam | yeah | |
| 17:19:16 | sean-k-mooney | so they update when the host package is updated | |
| 17:20:05 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: when we use the statelest firmware feature do we still have an nvram file? i think no correct? | |
| 17:20:15 | tkajinam | sean-k-mooney, no | |
| 17:20:52 | tkajinam | yeah so one example question which I can't answer now is "can existing code file and var file be updated when ovmf package is updated ? then do we need to reset nvram in that case ?" | |
| 17:21:05 | sean-k-mooney | its unfortunet that windows stores it bitlocker keys or key config in the nvram file | |
| 17:21:30 | tkajinam | I totally agree | |
| 17:21:33 | sean-k-mooney | the update of the ovmf package just updates teh template | |
| 17:21:56 | sean-k-mooney | but i guess nova woudl have update the backign file because the existng nvram was lost on hard-reboot | |
| 17:22:40 | sean-k-mooney | so in parctis it woudl have updated after the next vm reboot after the host package but i dont think that is what shoudl have been expected | |
| 17:23:47 | tkajinam | I hope so but compatibility between template and var is quite unclear, tbvh | |
| 17:24:17 | sean-k-mooney | ya im not really sure how the qemu/libvirt/ovmf comuity expect that too work | |
| 17:24:51 | sean-k-mooney | if they provided a migraton tool to migrate the nvram file to a newer version invoking that woudl be a potinally reasonabel thing to do on hard reboot | |
| 17:25:05 | sean-k-mooney | but im not aware of any such tool | |
| 17:25:16 | sean-k-mooney | it might exsit i have never looked into it | |
| 17:28:46 | sean-k-mooney | ai says no that tool does not exsit for what that worth | |
| 17:29:42 | nicolairuckel | Is there other software that uses qemu, libvirt, or ovmf that may have the same problem? | |
| 17:30:16 | nicolairuckel | Then it might make sense to see how other projects handle that issue. | |
| 17:30:31 | sean-k-mooney | yes, kubvirt, proxmox and virtuozo but apprently the fix is delete the file losing the data and just recreate it in the rare case it does nto work | |