| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-07-25 | |||
| 02:13:59 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `host` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941483 | |
| 02:13:59 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942021 | |
| 02:14:00 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925771 | |
| 02:14:01 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: test live migration between hosts with different security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952629 | |
| 02:14:01 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: update instance request_spec with secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952630 | |
| 02:14:03 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: confirm secret security via hard reboot https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955847 | |
| 05:13:25 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add hw_tpm_secret_security image property https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940196 | |
| 05:13:25 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add hw:tpm_secret_security extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/940197 | |
| 05:13:26 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: migrate legacy instances to new security policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942501 | |
| 05:13:26 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `user` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942502 | |
| 05:13:27 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `host` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941795 | |
| 05:13:27 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add vtpm_secret_(uuid|value) to LiveMigrateData https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952628 | |
| 05:13:28 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `host` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941483 | |
| 05:13:29 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942021 | |
| 05:13:29 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925771 | |
| 05:13:31 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: test live migration between hosts with different security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952629 | |
| 05:13:31 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: update instance request_spec with secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952630 | |
| 05:13:33 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: confirm secret security via hard reboot https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955847 | |
| 05:17:37 | jayaanand_ | we are addressing NFS volume extension issue we want to address in this resale and Nova dependency addressed in PR https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/680648. i am not able to reach out to author. please suggest way out | |
| 06:37:06 | noonedeadpunk | jayaanand_: so, do you consider taking over the patch and addressing the review point, or wanna original author to do that? | |
| 06:37:38 | noonedeadpunk | As with gerrit you can quite easily pull in the patch and update it | |
| 06:37:56 | noonedeadpunk | the only thing to remember now - is adding DSO to it... | |
| 06:58:38 | rpittau | gibi: thanks for the answer and apologies if I haven't replied, I was distracted downstream, we found the root cause, it does not look related to nova, it was a red herring, here's the issue if you're curious https://551b5d3d5ab1e9429cee-63329dcd236a98c48b3784d0d458e269.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/openstack/a4a4e91242434212aaaf067deecc5292/controller/logs/screen-q-l3.txt | |
| 07:05:46 | gibi | rpittau: no worries. I'm glad you found the root | |
| 07:20:51 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Test pyroute2 bump to greate than 0.9.x https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955858 | |
| 07:36:40 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `user` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942502 | |
| 07:36:41 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `host` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941795 | |
| 07:36:41 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: Add vtpm_secret_(uuid|value) to LiveMigrateData https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952628 | |
| 07:36:42 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `host` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/941483 | |
| 07:36:42 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support instances with `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/942021 | |
| 07:36:43 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: support live migration of `deployment` secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/925771 | |
| 07:36:43 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: test live migration between hosts with different security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952629 | |
| 07:36:44 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: update instance request_spec with secret security https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/952630 | |
| 07:36:45 | opendevreview | melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: TPM: confirm secret security via hard reboot https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955847 | |
| 08:43:40 | opendevreview | Kamil Sambor proposed openstack/nova master: Replace eventlet.event.Event with threading.Event https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/949754 | |
| 10:51:44 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: jayaanand_ so volume extened for voluem attach to a nova instnace is tecnhially not supported | |
| 10:51:51 | sean-k-mooney | the feature depend on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/949504 | |
| 10:52:01 | sean-k-mooney | https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack/?searchtext=assisted-volume-extend | |
| 10:52:28 | noonedeadpunk | frankly, I think this topic even boils down to be able to detach root volume | |
| 10:52:28 | sean-k-mooney | basicaly there is a spec to properly supprot it but at present its not expected to fully work | |
| 10:52:41 | noonedeadpunk | which was rejected due to absent usecase, if I'm not mistaken | |
| 10:52:53 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: well no that slithgly idfferten | |
| 10:53:15 | noonedeadpunk | it would solve it though? | |
| 10:53:43 | noonedeadpunk | like a usecase of restoring volume from snapshot and from backup | |
| 10:53:45 | sean-k-mooney | only for root voluems | |
| 10:53:56 | sean-k-mooney | you can already do that | |
| 10:54:00 | noonedeadpunk | but rest you can already detach and resize... | |
| 10:54:03 | sean-k-mooney | you can rebuild BFV guests | |
| 10:54:25 | noonedeadpunk | I'm side-=tracking now the topic a bit.... | |
| 10:54:33 | noonedeadpunk | But how does rebuild helps? | |
| 10:54:44 | sean-k-mooney | that how you restore form snapshot | |
| 10:54:52 | noonedeadpunk | and cinder just rejects to restore to volume that is attached? | |
| 10:55:02 | sean-k-mooney | no | |
| 10:55:28 | sean-k-mooney | if you have a nova vm booted form a cidner volume | |
| 10:55:47 | sean-k-mooney | you can rebuild to restore form snapshot isnce antelope ish maybe longer | |
| 10:56:05 | noonedeadpunk | huh | |
| 10:56:17 | noonedeadpunk | Yeah, I know that rebuild does work | |
| 10:56:20 | sean-k-mooney | https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/zed/implemented/volume-backed-server-rebuild.html | |
| 10:56:48 | sean-k-mooney | the comment i made about is, nova/cidner does not offically supprot extendeing nfs volumes that are in use | |
| 10:57:07 | noonedeadpunk | Though I still don't get a bit about snapshots | |
| 10:57:09 | sean-k-mooney | that what https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/assisted-volume-extend is intended to resolve | |
| 10:57:27 | noonedeadpunk | yeah, ok ,right | |
| 10:58:02 | sean-k-mooney | for any other backend however that perfectly valid to do so fixing bugs in that area is not a bad thing | |
| 10:58:21 | noonedeadpunk | or well, you mean instance snapshot, which is effectively a glance image, not cinder snapshots? | |
| 10:58:27 | sean-k-mooney | im just saying that even if we merged https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/680648 extending nfs would still not be supproted | |
| 10:58:45 | noonedeadpunk | ++ fair enough | |
| 10:58:47 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: nova has logic to do a cinder volume snapshot if it BFV | |
| 10:58:59 | noonedeadpunk | oh... | |
| 10:59:03 | noonedeadpunk | I missed that entirely | |
| 10:59:11 | sean-k-mooney | we still upload an empty glance iamge to hold metadata | |
| 10:59:22 | sean-k-mooney | but it just point to the cinder snapshot | |
| 11:00:10 | sean-k-mooney | we also have an addtion gem | |
| 11:00:26 | noonedeadpunk | but it's kinda... not very user frioendly? in terms of - you need to spawn snapshot in one specific way rather then other to be able to restore later? | |
| 11:00:41 | sean-k-mooney | if you have a BFV guest and it has addtional cidner data volume io belive a nova snapshot will snapshot all the disks | |
| 11:00:50 | sean-k-mooney | although i could be miss remeberting | |
| 11:01:06 | noonedeadpunk | anyway.... | |
| 11:01:15 | noonedeadpunk | this is really very different topic | |
| 11:01:42 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: no when they do rebuild it just updates the root disk, they can resotre the other volumes via cinder too indepently | |
| 11:01:49 | noonedeadpunk | I guess I wanted just to help out with the process of how one could work collaboratively on other patch | |
| 11:01:59 | sean-k-mooney | noonedeadpunk: whihc you did | |
| 11:02:45 | sean-k-mooney | they 5 year old patch they found might be useful fo rother backends | |
| 11:03:10 | noonedeadpunk | sean-k-mooney: frankly - I feel this being very confusing. And still not covering cinder-backups for root volumes... | |
| 11:03:43 | sean-k-mooney | i belive you can just use cidner to do ther backups for a root volume | |
| 11:03:53 | sean-k-mooney | the only part you cant do that way i belive is the restore | |
| 11:03:58 | noonedeadpunk | you just can't recover without destroying the instance, yeah | |
| 11:04:46 | sean-k-mooney | the way to fix that would be to make 2 changes | |
| 11:05:11 | sean-k-mooney | well kind of 1 | |
| 11:05:23 | sean-k-mooney | when you shleve an instance the volume should move to the reserved state | |
| 11:05:29 | sean-k-mooney | once the instnace is shleve offloaded | |
| 11:05:46 | sean-k-mooney | if cidner allowed you to restore in the reserved state then you coudl do it via cidner api | |
| 11:05:57 | noonedeadpunk | I think last time discussed the problem was on how/where to store attachment order or smth like that | |
| 11:06:22 | sean-k-mooney | i said 2 becaue it might be valid to consier putting the volume in reserved after stop | |
| 11:06:25 | noonedeadpunk | but now.. .I'm not sure if you also have to get it detached... | |
| 11:06:42 | noonedeadpunk | yeah. that might be actually a good point... | |
| 11:06:53 | sean-k-mooney | and then allow you to restore when its stopped or change the rebuild api to optionally take a volume snapshot uuid instead of an image | |
| 11:07:50 | noonedeadpunk | well, I think you should be then able also to revert the snapshot with cinder api when it's shelved | |
| 11:08:09 | noonedeadpunk | as I think it's almost the same check for restore snapshot/backup | |
| 11:08:10 | sean-k-mooney | i think right now cidner need it ot be in aviable state | |
| 11:08:16 | sean-k-mooney | rather then reserved | |
| 11:08:21 | noonedeadpunk | right | |