| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-22 | |||
| 20:16:09 | mriedem | but we could try keys until we found one that hits | |
| 20:16:32 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, that might be possible. | |
| 20:17:28 | melwitt | I was thinking I should change security_group_rules to use the 'user' key since its limit can be scoped to a user | |
| 20:18:06 | melwitt | that could be the logic that determines which key it should be. whereas fixed_ips, floating_ips, and networks limit can only be scoped to a project | |
| 20:18:44 | mriedem | if figured just key = 'user' if 'user' in count else 'project' | |
| 20:18:52 | mriedem | you already have something like that in here | |
| 20:19:09 | melwitt | yeah. I was just saying as a tangent that I'm gonna change the key for security_group_rules | |
| 20:19:19 | mriedem | anywho, it's been raining here for about a week but we have sun today, so i'm going to go out and mow the lawn. | |
| 20:19:36 | melwitt | k. thanks for all of the good comments on the review | |
| 20:19:45 | mriedem | \o/ i'm hoping the rest of the series is easier than this one | |
| 20:20:14 | melwitt | it is, until the "count instances" patch, that one will be hard as all of the "reserve" change to "check_deltas" | |
| 20:25:28 | mriedem | plus it's multi-cell right? | |
| 20:25:34 | mriedem | until we get that info from placement? | |
| 20:26:12 | melwitt | mriedem: yeah, the count function isn't hard to understand. it's all of the changes in nova/compute/api and nova/compute/manager that might be tough | |
| 20:26:38 | melwitt | lots of deleted lines and changing the old reservation stuff to counting | |
| 20:27:42 | melwitt | and by that I mean, replacing the reserve/commit/rollback with the stuff defined in the first patch | |
| 20:28:00 | mriedem | dansmith: re your reply in the reschedule ML thread - you can configure the cell conductor to hit the api db to get the cell mappings, yes? we don't want you to, but you can. | |
| 20:28:28 | dansmith | mriedem: yes, but you can't configure it to talk to the compute and the scheduler at the same time, which is why I said MQ and not DB :) | |
| 20:28:52 | mriedem | yeah that was more clear | |
| 20:29:10 | mriedem | need diagrams in the devref at some point | |
| 20:29:13 | mriedem | but, | |
| 20:29:29 | mriedem | you probably wouldn't want to put a line between the cell conductor and the api db in a diagram anyway since you don't want people doing that | |
| 20:29:42 | mriedem | and we do'nt want code relying on that | |
| 20:30:04 | dansmith | and it wouldn't help without also building that line for the mq | |
| 20:30:08 | mriedem | i also get tripped up when talking about this because you don't need a super conductor today | |
| 20:31:35 | mriedem | i think it would be good to have something in the devref like a topology diagram for multi-cell cells v2, with some information about which config is needed for each service in which location, i.e. where do i need api_db or database set in nova.conf, which is pointing at cell0, et | |
| 20:32:07 | mriedem | i have a feeling people will just set api_db in nova.conf everywhere because they don't know, like we used to have in devstack | |
| 20:32:44 | cburgess | dansmith mriedem Wait what did I do? | |
| 20:33:05 | mriedem | huh? | |
| 20:33:09 | cburgess | dansmith mriedem Something about live migrations and extra specs (no regular users can't see the extra specs). | |
| 20:33:17 | mriedem | anyway, time for cutoffs and sleeveless t for the neighbors | |
| 20:33:17 | dansmith | mriedem: you don't if you only have one cell | |
| 20:33:35 | cburgess | Oh looks like an old message from a few days ago. Weird. Sorry | |
| 20:33:52 | mriedem | cburgess: regular users can see extra specs, | |
| 20:33:57 | mriedem | because we do'nt scope the check to the flavor | |
| 20:34:14 | cburgess | mriedem Oh ok.. well I meant, I don't change anything with regard to extra spec visibility | |
| 20:34:26 | cburgess | So whatever upstream does we do | |
| 20:34:28 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/flavors_extraspecs.py#L53 | |
| 20:34:55 | mriedem | cburgess: we all assumed that extra specs are hidden by default b/c they are admin or user in policy and the owner of a flavor/extra spec is the admin, | |
| 20:34:57 | mriedem | however, | |
| 20:35:13 | mriedem | we don't scope the policy check to the flavor, we scope it to the context, and the user context is the admin or owner - they are the owner of the request | |
| 20:35:25 | mriedem | so unless you change the policy to admin only, non-admins can see extra specs | |
| 20:35:30 | cburgess | Oh thats acute... | |
| 20:35:36 | cburgess | Cute even... | |
| 20:35:42 | mriedem | right, and johnthetubaguy has a spec to fix that | |
| 20:35:45 | cburgess | Like I said, I don't think we change that one. | |
| 20:35:53 | cburgess | Hmmm I wonder if that would be an issue.. | |
| 20:35:59 | cburgess | Thats a pretty big change at this point. | |
| 20:36:01 | mriedem | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/433037/ | |
| 20:36:13 | mriedem | it would break a bunch of shit i'm sure | |
| 20:36:22 | mriedem | b/c you'd start getting 401 or 403 or whatever | |
| 20:36:52 | cburgess | Yeah we have it default policy. | |
| 20:37:42 | cburgess | mriedem_afk What else is this spec going to break I wonder. | |
| 20:51:02 | amrith | mriedem_afk, when you get a chance would you please take a look at the email I sent you. | |
| 20:51:20 | amrith | wondering how best to make sure I get all of the gotcha's in one go. | |
| 21:18:58 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: De-complicate some of the instance delete path https://review.openstack.org/458636 | |
| 21:18:59 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Move to proper target_cell calling convention https://review.openstack.org/458634 | |
| 21:19:00 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make target_cell() yield a new context https://review.openstack.org/458635 | |
| 21:19:01 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix live migration devstack hook for multicell environment https://review.openstack.org/458537 | |
| 21:19:01 | openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Target cell on local delete https://review.openstack.org/464059 | |
| 21:19:11 | dansmith | mriedem_afk: this is only the object context change to see if it breaks anything ^ | |
| 21:19:17 | dansmith | then I'll do the other things | |
| 21:49:59 | efried | mriedem_afk Can you please push https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391288/ ? Wanna get this pile moving again. Got some more stuff I want to add on top, features from previous review comments. | |
| #openstack-nova - 2017-05-23 | |||
| 00:19:24 | jaypipes | artom: hi! hey, what parts of http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/approved/virt-device-tagged-attach-detach.html were fully implemented and what's still left to do? | |
| 00:24:47 | artom | ja | |
| 00:25:16 | artom | jaypipes, hey. We have device tagging at boot time - ie, nova boot --nic net-id=foo,tag=foo test | |
| 00:25:34 | jaypipes | artom: but not dynamic, right? | |
| 00:25:45 | jaypipes | artom: ala our ML convo from around a month ago, yeah? | |
| 00:25:59 | artom | jaypipes, yep :) | |
| 00:26:07 | jaypipes | artom: got it. thank you sir!] | |
| 00:26:18 | jaypipes | artom: internal product manager was wondering about it.. | |
| 00:26:42 | artom | jaypipes, whoa! | |
| 00:27:35 | jaypipes | artom: :) | |
| 00:37:13 | openstackgerrit | Zhaokun Fu proposed openstack/nova master: fix typo https://review.openstack.org/466949 | |
| 01:04:38 | openstackgerrit | Hironori Shiina proposed openstack/nova master: Ironic: Support boot from Cinder volume https://review.openstack.org/215385 | |
| 01:08:13 | openstackgerrit | Ngo Quoc Cuong proposed openstack/nova master: Remove translation of log messages https://review.openstack.org/466957 | |
| 01:46:46 | openstackgerrit | John Haan proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Support volume_type with BDM paramter https://review.openstack.org/466595 | |
| 02:00:07 | mriedem | dansmith: looks like https://review.openstack.org/#/c/464059/ is happy | |
| 02:26:28 | mriedem | efried: it's starred but i'm shot, ping me about it tomorrow | |
| 02:27:08 | mriedem | efried: and review this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459753/ since you asked me to review something | |
| 02:28:49 | mriedem | xenserver ci seems to have gone nuts | |
| 02:54:25 | jichen | mriedem: hi, sorry, could you please help in guide some 3rd CI related questions? | |
| 02:59:19 | mriedem | jichen: if you're not proposing a driver in-tree then running after patches merge is fine, it's really up to you as it's all external to nova | |
| 02:59:31 | mriedem | jichen: i don't see value in reporting CI results to nova changes for an out of tree driver | |
| 03:00:35 | jichen | mriedem: we want to make it in tree just like powervm did in last cycle, we knew CI is the mandatory work that we need to show | |
| 03:01:07 | mriedem | jichen: powervm worked on that for about 2 years i think | |
| 03:01:23 | mriedem | btw, which z driver is this for? because there are at least 3 z-related drivers | |
| 03:01:24 | jichen | mriedem: so some of my colleagues thought the only request is to report 'gate' result while my understanding is we need report in 'check' work | |
| 03:01:49 | mriedem | jichen: there is no guide really | |
| 03:01:59 | jichen | mriedem: https://github.com/openstack/nova-zvm-virt-driver is the one we are working on | |
| 03:02:18 | mriedem | honestly no one upstream is even thinking about adding zvm in tree because it hasn't come up | |
| 03:03:10 | jichen | mriedem: actually we have been work on open source for a few years but our CI is not ready and need more resource, we knew CI is mandatory so we didn't bring it up until now | |
| 03:03:27 | mriedem | i think you might have asked me about this in barcelona? or someone did in atlanta? | |
| 03:03:34 | mriedem | the zHPM (?) thing also came up | |
| 03:03:39 | mriedem | which is a different team | |
| 03:03:52 | mriedem | and zKVM still never started any CI, which they talked about doing since Paris | |
| 03:04:12 | jichen | yes, they are from India team and you can think they zHPM are barematel on z | |
| 03:04:52 | mriedem | jichen: well, nothing is going to happen in pike, | |
| 03:04:59 | jichen | there are 3 different hypervisors z/VM is old one and last for some big customers like ADP etc, zKVM is a new one and libvirt based , DPM (zHPM) is more like a barematel thing | |
| 03:05:17 | mriedem | i think we've previously told z driver people and huawei fusionsphere people to follow what the powervm team did, | |