| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2017-11-17 | |||
| 15:26:02 | openstackgerrit | Nguyen Van Trung proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Add validation to improve pep8 check for nova-specs project https://review.openstack.org/519561 | |
| 15:26:22 | zigo | bauzas: I'm just trying to figure out if I should upload to stretch-security or just to the next point release... | |
| 15:26:48 | bauzas | zigo: I need to disappear for a couple of minutes (children at school) | |
| 15:27:10 | zigo | Sure ! | |
| 15:28:09 | zigo | mriedem: Maybe you could reply to me about this? | |
| 15:28:26 | mriedem | ArchiFleKs: that looks like a bug in openstackclient | |
| 15:28:32 | mriedem | i wonder if it's whitelisting the policy options | |
| 15:28:52 | zigo | mriedem: The question was: for the last CVE on Nova (re-schedule issue), can it be triggered by a non-priviledged tenant, or is it just an admin issue? | |
| 15:29:07 | mriedem | zigo: tenant | |
| 15:29:26 | zigo | mriedem: Allright, so this grants a debian-security upload then. | |
| 15:29:28 | zigo | Thanks. | |
| 15:29:28 | mriedem | create server with image A, rebuild server with image B | |
| 15:34:01 | mriedem | leakypipes: fried_rice: fyi, cyborg is looking for some granuler provider filtering stuff in placement, https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cyborg-feature-tag - looking over that, it sounds like they are looking for a solver scheduler though | |
| 15:34:22 | fried_rice | mriedem Cool, looking... | |
| 15:34:38 | fried_rice | mriedem What's a "solver scheduler"? | |
| 15:34:44 | mriedem | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsw-hjtQ8e4 | |
| 15:34:55 | mriedem | https://github.com/openstack/nova-solver-scheduler | |
| 15:35:18 | mriedem | alternative to filter scheduler with pluggable filters/weighers for custom optimizations | |
| 15:35:21 | mriedem | long before placement | |
| 15:35:34 | zigo | mriedem: If you don't mind the comment: it'd be nice, next time, to include the CVE number in the patch description. I'll talk about it to Tristant. | |
| 15:35:44 | leakypipes | mriedem: you lose your conversation rights with leakypipes for bringing up solver scheduler. | |
| 15:36:48 | mriedem | zigo: the CVE number didn't exist when i wrote the patches | |
| 15:36:49 | mriedem | sorry | |
| 15:36:59 | leakypipes | mriedem: I'm just kidding :) | |
| 15:37:05 | mriedem | i was saying sorry to zigo | |
| 15:37:07 | mriedem | :) | |
| 15:37:13 | mriedem | not the leakiest of pipes | |
| 15:37:19 | leakypipes | well, I retract my kidding, then :P | |
| 15:37:55 | mriedem | leakypipes: if it makes you feel better, they also want this in k8s | |
| 15:37:59 | mriedem | so sharing the load | |
| 15:38:15 | leakypipes | mriedem: heh | |
| 15:38:16 | mriedem | openstack can still ruin k8s yet! | |
| 15:38:42 | ayoung | mriedem, well one way we can catch up to Kubernetes is to fix our RBAC | |
| 15:39:18 | ayoung | and on that note, can we please merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384148/ as I've been chasing this now for over a year. The tests run right now, and I'd like to avoid more breakages | |
| 15:39:22 | mriedem | ayoung: will fixing our rbac get me to a thinner slimmer openstack for the edge? because that's all anyone cares about | |
| 15:39:38 | ayoung | mriedem, absolutely | |
| 15:40:00 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: instance_mapping/request_spec records exist even after the instances are archived https://review.openstack.org/515034 | |
| 15:40:02 | ayoung | mriedem, it will help with all members of U2 | |
| 15:40:13 | artom_ | mriedem, we should start with an openstack with sunglasses for bono, then we can think about the edge | |
| 15:40:29 | ayoung | Start with the Drummer. He's the sensible one | |
| 15:40:36 | mriedem | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXqnYCWW7Y | |
| 15:41:50 | ayoung | Anyone, fixing this bug requires getting changes into absolutely every project in OpenStack, and it is not a fun thing to chase | |
| 15:42:48 | ayoung | its coming up more and more, we are getting dupes of bug filings for it, and the requests for RBAC changes that cannot be done without proper scoping are piling up | |
| 15:43:10 | ayoung | I have a T-shirt for whomever finally pulls the trigger on it | |
| 15:45:17 | mriedem | ArchiFleKs: this is the bug https://github.com/openstack/python-openstackclient/blob/master/openstackclient/compute/v2/server_group.py#L58 | |
| 15:45:17 | zigo | Now I get this when building Nova 16.0.3: http://paste.openstack.org/show/626628/ | |
| 15:45:33 | mriedem | ArchiFleKs: osc is hard-coding the choices for the server group policies | |
| 15:46:45 | zigo | This really looks like a broken test, rather than an issue in Nova itself. | |
| 15:47:44 | mriedem | ArchiFleKs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-openstackclient/+bug/1732938 | |
| 15:47:44 | openstack | Launchpad bug 1732938 in python-openstackclient "Unable to create server group with soft-anti-affinity policy using microversion 2.15" [Undecided,New] | |
| 15:49:22 | mriedem | zigo: yes, although the test is mocking out that call | |
| 15:49:22 | mriedem | test_validate_volume_no_mtab_entry | |
| 15:49:25 | mriedem | oops | |
| 15:49:30 | mriedem | @mock.patch.object(psutil, "disk_partitions") | |
| 15:50:04 | mriedem | zigo: oh that's not fixed in pike | |
| 15:50:05 | mriedem | sec | |
| 15:50:24 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova stable/pike: Fix quobyte test_validate_volume_no_mtab_entry https://review.openstack.org/521118 | |
| 15:50:27 | mriedem | zigo: ^ | |
| 15:51:19 | zigo | mriedem: Wonderful, that's very helpful for me, and much better than blacklisting the test. | |
| 15:57:28 | mriedem | easy bp win https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450636/ | |
| 16:01:34 | ArchiFleKs | mriedem: thanks a lot i'll follow that | |
| 16:05:23 | bauzas | mriedem: indeed, will look into the vmware log change | |
| 16:37:04 | cfriesen | mriedem: are you planning on updating https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520660/ to query the volume image metadata? (Using _get_bdm_image_metadata() maybe?). If not would you like me to take a crack at it? | |
| 16:37:48 | mriedem | yeah planning on it, was just looking at something related to that | |
| 16:42:23 | fried_rice | Is the multi-node business (e.g. in resource_tracker _init_comput_host) *only* ironic? | |
| 16:42:56 | fried_rice | johnthetubaguy leakypipes mriedem ^ | |
| 16:44:13 | leakypipes | fried_rice: no. also vCenter, IIRC. | |
| 16:44:17 | fried_rice | k | |
| 16:44:33 | leakypipes | fried_rice: but Ironic is the canonical example, yes. | |
| 16:44:36 | dansmith | leakypipes: no, it's only ironic | |
| 16:44:44 | leakypipes | dansmith: oh? | |
| 16:45:00 | dansmith | there was a vmware use of it long ago but it's been gone for a while | |
| 16:45:05 | leakypipes | ah, k | |
| 16:45:14 | leakypipes | dansmith: no? :( | |
| 16:45:41 | dansmith | leakypipes: I'm still suffering from Australia Pox | |
| 16:45:55 | dansmith | the country really does try to kill people | |
| 16:46:01 | leakypipes | ouch. | |
| 16:48:37 | mriedem | i think the vcenter multinode thing was removed in kilo | |
| 16:50:00 | mriedem | liberty: https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/2f7403bd7200a01e350cde9182c273562e0c9c62#diff-9c54c69030bce3e6af0deba002ab6b27 | |
| 16:51:23 | fried_rice | Dig, thanks y'all. | |
| 16:59:47 | leakypipes | fried_rice: you on the unit test failure beginning in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520643/? | |
| 17:00:07 | fried_rice | leakypipes Yes, it's in my sandbox. | |
| 17:00:11 | leakypipes | kk | |
| 17:00:14 | leakypipes | just checkin. | |
| 17:00:28 | fried_rice | leakypipes I'm not hurrying to push it up, since there's so many patches in front of that subseries. | |
| 17:00:47 | leakypipes | k, np. you'd just asked me to review that and the ones above it. | |
| 17:00:57 | leakypipes | in any case, I've added my thoughts. | |
| 17:01:00 | leakypipes | fried_rice: ^ | |
| 17:01:26 | fried_rice | leakypipes Yeah, the ones not marked WIP should be ready, and (assuming no review-prompted changes) should only need rebases once that UT fix goes in. | |
| 17:09:00 | mriedem | cfriesen: oh another thing, today we *always* update instance.image_ref to the new image id provided during rebuild, so even if you rebuild a bfv instance with the same image as the original, we break that contractual thing in the API where instance.image_ref == None means volume-backed | |
| 17:14:27 | tbachman | fried_rolls: menu change? | |
| 17:14:51 | cfriesen | yeah...was thinking that we'd have to modify your patch to make that update conditional on BFV, and potentially deal with fallout from code expecting instance.image_ref to be set | |
| 17:15:08 | cfriesen | mriedem: ^ | |
| 17:17:27 | mriedem | code as in rebuild code in the compute service? | |
| 17:20:13 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: [functional] Remove duplication of boot helper https://review.openstack.org/521071 | |
| 17:20:13 | openstackgerrit | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: [ci] Use pseudo-random names for new resources https://review.openstack.org/479777 | |
| 17:21:07 | cfriesen | mriedem: yes | |
| 17:22:07 | mriedem | problem with that is, we could have backlevel computes, assuming there would need to be a change in the computes to handle that | |
| 17:22:13 | cfriesen | mriedem: alternately we'd have to switch to some other method of representing BFV, or else have nova-api null it out for BFV instances | |
| 17:22:23 | mriedem | but it shouldn't be a problem b/c i think we pass the new image_id down through rpc | |