| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2021-04-29 | |||
| 16:04:23 | sean-k-mooney | it shows how frequetly people use the network jsone templating if we are only seeing this now | |
| 16:04:23 | sean-k-mooney | it shows how frequetly people use the network jsone templating if we are only seeing this now | |
| 16:05:51 | sean-k-mooney | this is used to validate https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#DEFAULT.injected_network_template right | |
| 16:05:52 | sean-k-mooney | this is used to validate https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#DEFAULT.injected_network_template right | |
| 16:06:39 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: ooh, I did not know about that | |
| 16:06:39 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: ooh, I did not know about that | |
| 16:06:42 | gibi | but I guess yes | |
| 16:06:42 | gibi | but I guess yes | |
| 16:07:41 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: testing bionic drop https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/788791 | |
| 16:07:41 | openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: testing bionic drop https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/788791 | |
| 16:07:46 | sean-k-mooney | well im not sure what we might be using the network.json for other then the network metadta consumed by cloud init which i think is generated by that template | |
| 16:07:46 | sean-k-mooney | well im not sure what we might be using the network.json for other then the network metadta consumed by cloud init which i think is generated by that template | |
| 16:10:54 | gibi | it make sense | |
| 16:10:54 | gibi | it make sense | |
| 16:11:44 | gibi | btw sean-k-mooney you promised on the PTG to add periodic jobs for placement and then we can look at the results in regularly on the nova meeting | |
| 16:11:44 | gibi | btw sean-k-mooney you promised on the PTG to add periodic jobs for placement and then we can look at the results in regularly on the nova meeting | |
| 16:12:00 | gibi | let me know if you need help adding them | |
| 16:12:00 | gibi | let me know if you need help adding them | |
| 16:12:21 | sean-k-mooney | oh i should be in the meeting didn realise it started | |
| 16:12:22 | sean-k-mooney | oh i should be in the meeting didn realise it started | |
| 16:12:30 | gibi | :) | |
| 16:13:03 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787508 | |
| 16:13:03 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787508 | |
| 16:13:12 | sean-k-mooney | you looked at the patch already | |
| 16:13:13 | sean-k-mooney | you looked at the patch already | |
| 16:14:39 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: lol, I totally forgot | |
| 16:14:39 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: lol, I totally forgot | |
| 16:15:02 | gibi | thanks again | |
| 16:15:02 | gibi | thanks again | |
| 16:26:31 | elod | lyarwood: I've checked the placement patch meanwhile and +2+W'd as it looks appropriate | |
| 16:26:31 | elod | lyarwood: I've checked the placement patch meanwhile and +2+W'd as it looks appropriate | |
| 16:26:52 | lyarwood | ack thanks | |
| 16:26:52 | gmann | elod: lyarwood its base patch too -https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787525/2 | |
| 16:26:52 | lyarwood | ack thanks | |
| 16:26:52 | gmann | elod: lyarwood its base patch too -https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787525/2 | |
| 16:29:35 | gibi | and if you are reviewing placement already could you please hit this too https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787508 ? | |
| 16:29:35 | gibi | and if you are reviewing placement already could you please hit this too https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/787508 ? | |
| 16:29:43 | gibi | simple job addition | |
| 16:29:43 | gibi | simple job addition | |
| 16:29:51 | elod | gmann: +2+W'd, too | |
| 16:29:51 | elod | gmann: +2+W'd, too | |
| 16:31:17 | gmann | elod: thanks | |
| 16:31:17 | gmann | elod: thanks | |
| 16:31:45 | elod | np | |
| 16:31:45 | elod | np | |
| 16:33:11 | gmann | gibi: lgtm, +A | |
| 16:33:11 | gmann | gibi: lgtm, +A | |
| 16:34:10 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney that is good idea. I will try this for few of QA repos too where we do not have frequent changes and end up finding failing gate if there is any change. | |
| 16:34:10 | gmann | gibi: sean-k-mooney that is good idea. I will try this for few of QA repos too where we do not have frequent changes and end up finding failing gate if there is any change. | |
| 16:37:39 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: the weekly pipeline give a nice cadence to them too | |
| 16:37:39 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: the weekly pipeline give a nice cadence to them too | |
| 16:38:22 | kashyap | lyarwood: Hey | |
| 16:38:22 | kashyap | lyarwood: Hey | |
| 16:38:32 | sean-k-mooney | being realistinc peopel are not going to check them daily and if its a 2 second line item in the weekly meeting just to make sure the last build ran and it was green then i think its useful | |
| 16:38:32 | sean-k-mooney | being realistinc peopel are not going to check them daily and if its a 2 second line item in the weekly meeting just to make sure the last build ran and it was green then i think its useful | |
| 16:38:52 | kashyap | lyarwood: We don't use "virtio-blk,scsi=on" as a SCSI passthrough, right? From my `grep`ing around, we don't... | |
| 16:38:52 | kashyap | lyarwood: We don't use "virtio-blk,scsi=on" as a SCSI passthrough, right? From my `grep`ing around, we don't... | |
| 16:39:13 | kashyap | lyarwood: I ask because, QEMU folks pinged me to tell that support for it was removed in Linux v5.6; and QEMU deprecated it in 5.0 | |
| 16:39:14 | kashyap | lyarwood: I ask because, QEMU folks pinged me to tell that support for it was removed in Linux v5.6; and QEMU deprecated it in 5.0 | |
| 16:39:29 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: true, we check periodic jobs in QA office hours weekly and it will hell to add these type of jobs in less-active repo | |
| 16:39:29 | gmann | sean-k-mooney: true, we check periodic jobs in QA office hours weekly and it will hell to add these type of jobs in less-active repo | |
| 16:39:40 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i dont belive we do | |
| 16:39:40 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: i dont belive we do | |
| 16:39:53 | kashyap | Cool; figured as much | |
| 16:39:53 | kashyap | Cool; figured as much | |
| 16:41:41 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: i have tought about doing it for os-vif in the past but i tened to test that trasitivly enough in my local devstack but its useful in any repo that does not ahve a patch proplsed at least once a week | |
| 16:41:42 | sean-k-mooney | gmann: i have tought about doing it for os-vif in the past but i tened to test that trasitivly enough in my local devstack but its useful in any repo that does not ahve a patch proplsed at least once a week | |
| 16:43:01 | gmann | +1, what i encounter is trying to add some change but see gate is already failing for long and we did not knw about it and end up spending time on that in release time or so :) | |
| 16:43:01 | gmann | +1, what i encounter is trying to add some change but see gate is already failing for long and we did not knw about it and end up spending time on that in release time or so :) | |
| 16:47:32 | BLZbubba | hi guys, when i create a uefi image with openstack image create and specify "os_secure_boot=disabled", this property is ignored and nova forces the uefi secboot bios instead. interestingly it is only ignored when I also specify "hw_firmware_type=uefi" so it must be happening at a higher level than just glance.... any idea how to stop nova from trying the secboot version of ovmf? | |
| 16:47:32 | BLZbubba | hi guys, when i create a uefi image with openstack image create and specify "os_secure_boot=disabled", this property is ignored and nova forces the uefi secboot bios instead. interestingly it is only ignored when I also specify "hw_firmware_type=uefi" so it must be happening at a higher level than just glance.... any idea how to stop nova from trying the secboot version of ovmf? | |
| 16:48:49 | BLZbubba | apart from the gross hack I've been using, which is rm /usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd | |
| 16:48:49 | BLZbubba | apart from the gross hack I've been using, which is rm /usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd | |
| 16:49:28 | BLZbubba | the glance people said to ask here | |
| 16:49:28 | BLZbubba | the glance people said to ask here | |
| 16:58:27 | sean-k-mooney | BLZbubba: so secure boot shoudl be disabled by default | |
| 16:58:27 | sean-k-mooney | BLZbubba: so secure boot shoudl be disabled by default | |
| 16:58:55 | sean-k-mooney | if you jsut set hw_firmware_type=uefi it should use the non secure boot firmware | |
| 16:58:55 | sean-k-mooney | if you jsut set hw_firmware_type=uefi it should use the non secure boot firmware | |
| 16:59:29 | sean-k-mooney | unless the recnelty added secure boot support feature regressed that behavior | |
| 16:59:29 | sean-k-mooney | unless the recnelty added secure boot support feature regressed that behavior | |
| 16:59:36 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: kashyap ^ | |
| 16:59:36 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: kashyap ^ | |
| 17:00:32 | stephenfin | BLZbubba: what version of nova? | |
| 17:00:32 | stephenfin | BLZbubba: what version of nova? | |
| 17:02:16 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Prior to the secure boot feature, we defaulted the secure boot firmware https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/363710b655434a15b6b85d9ca65343210b104e56 | |
| 17:02:17 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: Prior to the secure boot feature, we defaulted the secure boot firmware https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/363710b655434a15b6b85d9ca65343210b104e56 | |
| 17:02:44 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: but we did not enable secureboot in the xml so it was disabled in the geust | |
| 17:02:45 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: but we did not enable secureboot in the xml so it was disabled in the geust | |
| 17:02:46 | stephenfin | though we didn't set the necessary flags, so it should be using the firmware but not enabling the feature | |
| 17:02:46 | stephenfin | though we didn't set the necessary flags, so it should be using the firmware but not enabling the feature | |
| 17:02:50 | stephenfin | yes | |
| 17:03:11 | sean-k-mooney | so the firmwar was capable fo secure boot but qemu woudl not try to use it | |
| 17:03:11 | sean-k-mooney | so the firmwar was capable fo secure boot but qemu woudl not try to use it | |
| 17:03:17 | sean-k-mooney | so we should still have the same behavior | |
| 17:03:17 | sean-k-mooney | so we should still have the same behavior | |
| 17:03:35 | stephenfin | yes | |
| 17:03:58 | sean-k-mooney | BLZbubba: is this breaking you some how? | |
| 17:03:58 | sean-k-mooney | BLZbubba: is this breaking you some how? | |
| 17:04:51 | sean-k-mooney | BLZbubba: os_secure_boot prior to the wallaby relesae was only suppoted by hyperv | |