| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2023-02-15 | |||
| 14:28:14 | bauzas | route: SIOCADDRT: File exists WARN: failed: route add -net "0.0.0.0/0" gw "10.1.0.1" | |
| 14:28:15 | sean-k-mooney | i litrally have been seeing that for years | |
| 14:28:28 | bauzas | technically there is indeed a default route set | |
| 14:28:45 | bauzas | because of the 'file exists' | |
| 14:29:52 | sean-k-mooney | i dont think this is related | |
| 14:30:15 | sean-k-mooney | as i said im used to seeing htat warning. its possible however i think its unlikely | |
| 14:30:42 | bauzas | well, OK | |
| 14:31:03 | bauzas | I already spent my month investigating | |
| 14:31:26 | bauzas | and we still have the udhcpc fix to merge, working on it | |
| 14:42:45 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: upgrade nova-next to use dhcpcd client w/ cirros-0.6.1 guests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873934 | |
| 14:42:57 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: ralonsoh: reviews appreciated ^ | |
| 14:44:03 | ralonsoh | let me check | |
| 14:45:00 | bauzas | ralonsoh: thanks a lot | |
| 15:01:32 | gibi | bauzas: about the cirros image version change. Does our common jobs switched to 0.6.1 already? I.e. do we know that such cirros guest change is safe from the other tests perspective? | |
| 15:01:51 | bauzas | gibi: that's a very good point | |
| 15:02:02 | bauzas | I don't really want this change to be merged *now* | |
| 15:02:06 | ralonsoh | we have been using this image for 1 month now | |
| 15:02:10 | bauzas | but at least this is nova-next | |
| 15:02:22 | ralonsoh | but maybe now this is not the time for nova, maybe in some weeks | |
| 15:02:22 | bauzas | so we can somehow test cirros-6 in that job | |
| 15:04:42 | bauzas | ralonsoh: tbh, I'm a bit reluctant to do any job changes while we are so close to FF as this is already a terrible month of CI failures but we somehow need to balance the benefits vs. the risks | |
| 15:04:55 | ralonsoh | I agree | |
| 15:05:07 | ralonsoh | maybe it should be better to avoid this change for now | |
| 15:05:15 | gibi | bauzas: if neutron using this image for a month now then maybe we can take the risk and merge it in nova-next too | |
| 15:05:33 | gibi | it is not like we would be the first to switch then | |
| 15:39:30 | opendevreview | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova stable/train: libvirt: At start-up rework compareCPU() usage with a workaround https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873722 | |
| 17:17:17 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if you wanna get some status on the accepted blueprints https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-antelope-blueprint-status | |
| 17:18:20 | sean-k-mooney | thanks | |
| 17:18:58 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: Clean up when queued live migration aborted https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/845754 | |
| 17:21:22 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: Test aborting queued live migration https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873575 | |
| 17:21:40 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: Add functional tests to reproduce bug #1960412 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873576 | |
| 17:21:47 | bauzas | gmann: every morning, I'm opening https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/864594 to check its status, I guess we gonna defer it to Bobcat unfortunately ? | |
| 17:23:08 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: https://pypi.org/project/python-novaclient/#history so is that still broken | |
| 17:23:20 | bauzas | yes | |
| 17:23:32 | bauzas | the requirements gate is mostly broken | |
| 17:23:52 | bauzas | oh the novaclient | |
| 17:24:00 | bauzas | no, we haven't released yet a client patch | |
| 17:25:17 | bauzas | elodilles: planning to propose a releases patch for novaclient soon or want me to do it ? | |
| 17:29:26 | sean-k-mooney | ok so nova-client is blocking the patch to osc | |
| 17:29:43 | sean-k-mooney | so i tough we were going to do a release last week i guess not | |
| 17:30:08 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: in relation to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-openstackclient/+/872420 | |
| 17:30:09 | opendevreview | Alexey Stupnikov proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: Clean up when queued live migration aborted https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/873577 | |
| 17:30:17 | bauzas | no, last week was a nonclient lib featurefreeze | |
| 17:30:21 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 17:30:38 | bauzas | and we just merged 2.95 support in novaclient yesterday :) | |
| 17:30:40 | sean-k-mooney | but i tought wee were also going to do a release of novaclinet to unblock artom patch | |
| 17:31:03 | bauzas | we did | |
| 17:31:04 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok what does that do | |
| 17:31:11 | bauzas | and it was merged yesterday | |
| 17:31:19 | bauzas | now we only have OSC patch up | |
| 17:32:01 | sean-k-mooney | oh 2.95 is the evacuate one | |
| 17:32:11 | sean-k-mooney | oh right that has been blocked in ci | |
| 17:32:19 | sean-k-mooney | ok that makes sense | |
| 17:32:42 | bauzas | iirc, 2.94 and 2.95 were noop on the client side | |
| 17:33:03 | bauzas | this is just for saying that novaclient actually supports those microversion calls, that's it | |
| 17:36:25 | sean-k-mooney | its adding help text and a devstack functional test | |
| 17:36:33 | sean-k-mooney | but its not strictly required | |
| 17:36:38 | bauzas | the OSC patch ? ya | |
| 17:36:46 | sean-k-mooney | yep | |
| 17:36:54 | bauzas | and I think sahid abandoned his OSC patch | |
| 17:37:04 | bauzas | since no really support was required | |
| 17:37:04 | sean-k-mooney | i asked artom to add docs saying that as of microverison ... fqdns are supported | |
| 17:37:27 | bauzas | but that can be addressed after ff | |
| 17:37:39 | sean-k-mooney | if the osc team is fine wiht that yes | |
| 17:38:04 | sean-k-mooney | as i said its just help text really | |
| 17:38:58 | bauzas | yeah it's out of our scope anyway | |
| 17:39:16 | bauzas | fwiw, if someone tells me gate is great, I just send that https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/872413 | |
| 17:39:44 | bauzas | like I already said, I'm no longer a core reviewer | |
| 17:39:52 | bauzas | my name should be "core rechecker" | |
| 17:40:47 | bauzas | https://zuul.openstack.org/status#openstack/nova | |
| 17:44:22 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: -1d https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/873537 | |
| 17:45:47 | bauzas | (and +1d https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/873515 ) | |
| 17:45:58 | gmann | bauzas: ok, agree to move 864594 to bobcat. do not want to rush at last movement. | |
| 17:46:15 | bauzas | gmann: ack and thanks for your dedication | |
| 17:46:45 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: im ok with the feature bump for novaclient instead of bugfix | |
| 17:46:50 | sean-k-mooney | so makes sense | |
| 17:47:57 | sean-k-mooney | osc-placement also makes sesne | |
| 17:55:06 | spatel | sean-k-mooney quick question, I have ceph storage backed openstack today ceph went down because of power | |
| 17:55:48 | spatel | now ceph is back but when i start VMs its getting stuck in boot script no available boot disk | |
| 17:56:22 | spatel | SeaBIOS POST script getting that message. | |
| 17:56:53 | spatel | logs are clean no errors related ceph in nova logs | |
| 17:57:59 | spatel | it stuck here - https://paste.opendev.org/show/bPcyI5UPi0PWoN7iUX2J/ | |
| 17:59:39 | spatel | I found this when searching - https://bugs.launchpad.net/kolla/+bug/1688496 | |
| 18:30:38 | elodilles | bauzas: ok, i see you have found the generated release patches :) | |
| 18:30:54 | elodilles | bauzas: btw, requirements gate fix has landed | |
| 18:32:28 | elodilles | i've rechecked the os-traits. now we have to wait for the ci jobs to finish | |
| 19:28:27 | mnaser | question: do you have to enable the new scope enforcement for the reader role to work? | |
| 19:44:17 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Factor out a mixin class for candidate aware filters https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854929 | |
| 19:47:19 | gmann | mnaser: we enabled the scope/new-defaults by default which enforce reader role by default https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/866218 | |
| 19:48:36 | gmann | mnaser: it is on master which is not yet released. for older release yes you need to enable these two flags in nova.conf to enforce reader role . [oslo_policy] enforce_scope = True enforce_new_defaults = True | |
| 19:52:51 | mnaser | gmann: so it’s not possible to just have enforce new defaults only without scope? I’m mostly worried about Horizon :) | |
| 19:54:49 | gmann | mnaser: scope for all the policy rule is 'project' now so enabling the scope is to reject the system scope token at early stage with 403. existing project scope token keep working whether scope is enabled or disabled | |
| 19:55:48 | gmann | but yes, you can keep only new defaults enable which will work fine unless system scoped token is used | |
| 19:56:28 | gmann | with scope disabled system scope token may fail (for project level resources) later on as they do not have project id | |
| 19:58:01 | gmann | I think horizon is using project scoped token (they have not changed it for srabc) so scope enable/disable should not impact there | |
| 19:59:51 | gmann | kolla was the one who were using system scope for nova which is now fixed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/870879 | |
| 20:00:21 | gmann | other than that no body reported if new defaults or scope enable has impacted them | |
| 20:10:46 | mnaser | gmann: oh I see, so as of now, as long as we don’t have custom policies, we should be able to flip it on? | |
| 20:13:11 | gmann | mnaser: yeah | |
| 20:13:38 | mnaser | gmann: ok we’ll flip that and see how it goes! Thank you. | |