| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-08-19 | |||
| 21:00:28 | sean-k-mooney | like we set the request for a config drive or the machine tyep when the isntace lands on a comptue node | |
| 21:00:45 | sean-k-mooney | and recored them in instance_system_metadta during spawn | |
| 21:02:19 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L7190-L7200 | |
| 21:03:22 | sean-k-mooney | we do it in other palcees too that just the first palce i found | |
| 21:03:46 | melwitt | yeah that's very similar thing. but I don't find that ever makes it to the request spec | |
| 21:04:10 | sean-k-mooney | there are a bunch of debug lgos when we boot a vm where we recored specific values to make sure they dont change over the lifetime of the vm | |
| 21:04:20 | melwitt | not sure if any of those cases are things that are required for scheduling | |
| 21:06:13 | sean-k-mooney | ya nor am i | |
| 21:10:27 | sean-k-mooney | oh i set config_drive on the instance object not the image meta github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L2255-L2268 https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L2255-L2268 | |
| 21:10:37 | sean-k-mooney | and we do not schduler on that either | |
| 21:19:44 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: https://paste.opendev.org/show/bGufCv4fBSCZwAP3m6qT/ thos are the log message i ment | |
| 21:20:37 | sean-k-mooney | which is https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L2255-L2268 | |
| 21:20:53 | sean-k-mooney | sorry wrong link | |
| 21:21:06 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/d5cfdfd16d7573a83b05dd6c0656b7610e77c4c4/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L993-L1043 | |
| 21:21:52 | sean-k-mooney | we can scheduler on 'hw_video_model', 'hw_vif_model' | |
| 21:22:10 | sean-k-mooney | via a placement prefileter | |
| 21:22:23 | sean-k-mooney | but perhaps that only works fi you ahve it set on the iamge properly | |
| 21:22:54 | melwitt | hm yeah maybe | |
| 21:23:10 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L2255-L2268 | |
| 21:23:32 | sean-k-mooney | wehn i wrote that i was not thinkign fo this other way of populating it | |
| 21:23:35 | sean-k-mooney | ... | |
| 21:23:46 | sean-k-mooney | way is that link stuck in my copy past buffer | |
| 21:23:57 | sean-k-mooney | https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/d5cfdfd16d7573a83b05dd6c0656b7610e77c4c4/nova/scheduler/request_filter.py#L199 | |
| 21:24:10 | melwitt | it really wants you to talk about that link I guess | |
| 21:24:12 | sean-k-mooney | oh its becasue the url was not updating in my firefox | |
| 21:24:36 | sean-k-mooney | you know the way if you edit the url but then navigate it does not updstea properly i think that is what happend | |
| 21:25:35 | melwitt | yeah that request filter is assuming the image properties are already in the request spec | |
| 21:25:41 | sean-k-mooney | so lee added this registration logic so that we could freely change the defautls without affectin new instnaces | |
| 21:26:02 | sean-k-mooney | but it was never inteded for scheduleing really | |
| 21:26:12 | sean-k-mooney | but i guess that was an oversight in the orignal feature | |
| 21:26:48 | sean-k-mooney | we never provide a way to sync the request spec with those if it was ever needed | |
| 21:27:23 | sean-k-mooney | melwitt: this is were your nova audit proroal woudl have been useful | |
| 21:27:40 | sean-k-mooney | i.e. to do a perodic sync of this info form the cell db to the api db | |
| 21:29:15 | melwitt | nova-janitor | |
| 21:31:50 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-novaclient master: Replace keystoneclient with openstacksdk https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/952986 | |
| 21:37:47 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2024.1: restrict swap volume to cinder https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957764 | |
| 23:54:06 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Ignore metadata tags in pci/stats _find_pool logic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945096 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-08-20 | |||
| 05:53:44 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Add service role in Nova policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957578 | |
| 06:46:54 | opendevreview | Max proposed openstack/nova master: fix: leftover volume_attachment on instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934984 | |
| 06:52:32 | opendevreview | Max proposed openstack/nova master: fix: leftover volume_attachment on instance delete https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/934984 | |
| 11:19:01 | priteau | Hello. I am looking for reviewers for the backports fixing https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2098496. | |
| 11:19:19 | priteau | 2024.2 patches are ready to approve now: | |
| 11:19:21 | priteau | - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945098 | |
| 11:19:24 | priteau | - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945099 | |
| 15:28:29 | jssfr | does openstack have a workflow for booting a VM based off a unified kernel image (i.e. kernel + initramfs)? | |
| 15:42:43 | pas-ha[m] | jssfr: I'd think you still can, but it is deprecated since 2024.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/926144 | |
| 15:43:51 | jssfr | lovely | |
| 15:44:13 | jssfr | thanks! | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-08-21 | |||
| 08:56:59 | zigo | sean-k-mooney: Is Zed affected by OSSN-0094 ? That's in Debian Bookworm (ie: oldstable), which is why I wonder. So far, I did the work for caracal, dalmatian and epoxy, as there was patches available. | |
| 08:58:36 | zigo | It'd be nice ot have patches for zed, antelope and bobcat btw. | |
| 11:10:01 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: well those are unmaintended so as a rule the core team do not patch any bugs on them but we have antelop downstream and i think it was a clean cherry pick | |
| 11:11:12 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: but yes this has basicly been a thing forever. gibi did some monumental heavy liftign to backprot to wallabyt and train inertnally with a lot fo conflict in the tests. | |
| 11:11:24 | sean-k-mooney | but you might be able to just apply it back to zed | |
| 11:12:25 | sean-k-mooney | zigo: the risk profile fo this is relitivly low which is why we didn not push for a CVE ro similar | |
| 11:13:00 | sean-k-mooney | but i woudl encurage packages to patch it where ever they deem resonable | |
| 11:19:23 | zigo | If it's clean apply for Zed to Bobcat, then I'll attempt it. | |
| 11:21:58 | zigo | It doesn't apply on antelope, though it's only one hunk. | |
| 11:23:05 | sean-k-mooney | i suspect if that is resovled for antelope it would not need more change in zed. downstream we only have branches for the release we productise | |
| 11:23:23 | sean-k-mooney | so we jumped form 2023.1 to antelope then to wallaby then to train | |
| 11:23:44 | sean-k-mooney | and witht he other backprot we have those patches are not alwasy useful upstrem | |
| 11:23:56 | sean-k-mooney | since they generally wont apply clenaly | |
| 11:25:38 | sean-k-mooney | our "antelope" branch as bits of epoxy in it alsthoru we really try not to do feature backport mroe then one-two upstream releases as it gets harder as time goes by to backprot bug fixes if we diverge too much | |
| 11:26:58 | zigo | Looks ok, I could backport to Zed and Antelope for at least Nova. | |
| 11:27:03 | zigo | Will do Watcher next. | |
| 11:27:36 | sean-k-mooney | watcher i think will be simpler because it did not have much code developement for quite a while | |
| 11:28:23 | zigo | Thanks for all. :P | |
| 11:29:32 | sean-k-mooney | by the way if you want to propose those to the unmainted branches you can but i have no +2 right there but elodilles may be interested in them | |
| 11:40:30 | zigo | I confirm it's super easy to backport! :) | |
| 11:40:32 | elodilles | zigo: please cherry pick the backport to unmaintained/2023.1 and zed branches and add me as reviewer and i'll review them | |
| 11:40:46 | elodilles | s/backport/bugfix | |
| 12:03:25 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: thanks, i'm interested, indeed :) | |
| 12:33:04 | tkajinam | Could someone from the core review this remaining python 3.9 removal patch ? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/953367 | |
| 12:33:18 | tkajinam | and also this tiny one to get rid of a deprecation warning https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/953759 | |
| 12:34:33 | tkajinam | I'd also appreciate any feedback about sev-es series https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bp/amd-sev-es-libvirt-support%22 ! | |
| 12:40:47 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: done ill look at sev later if i have time or monday | |
| 12:56:58 | tkajinam | sean-k-mooney, thanks ! | |
| 13:13:00 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Fix validators for hw:cpu_max_* extra specs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/957732 | |
| 13:49:02 | zigo | elodilles: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/958200 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/958202 | |
| 13:49:14 | zigo | Will you also review backports for Watcher? | |
| 14:22:10 | elodilles | zigo: thanks! sure, i can do review watcher backports as well | |
| 14:22:44 | zigo | Ok, working on it then. | |
| 14:29:54 | zigo | elodilles: I did this one for Antelope: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/958207 though there's no unmaintained/zed branch, how can I do it then? | |
| 14:46:16 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/placement master: sqlalchemy: Use built-in declarative https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/953759 | |
| 14:54:59 | elodilles | zigo: thanks for the nova backports, i've found some nits in it, otherwise looks good! see my comments! | |
| 14:55:58 | elodilles | zigo: as watcher is only open for backports till antelope, we cannot test it and post it on zed (and older branches), so antilope is fine there | |
| 14:59:51 | elodilles | zigo: i'll review the watcher patch as well, thanks for that, too! | |
| 15:00:52 | zigo | Fixed according to your suggestions. | |
| 15:15:19 | elodilles | zigo: thanks! though i think you forgot to git push it o:) | |
| 15:17:27 | elodilles | zigo: on the other hand i see that tempest jobs are failing as we use pinned tempest (branchless repository) there, so we probably have to exclude some tests in .zuul.yaml to make the tempest based jobs functional on unmaintained/2023.1 | |
| 15:25:08 | priteau | sean-k-mooney: Hello. Could you please review these backports like you did for 2025.1? Thanks! https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945098 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/945099 | |
| 15:25:21 | priteau | Same request for elodilles :) | |
| 15:27:38 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: there are exactly 3 that will fail | |
| 15:28:40 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: so you would need to update the regex or backprot and release a new tempest verion to support the unmainted versions | |
| 15:28:53 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: i think modifying the regex is proably mroe correct | |
| 15:31:38 | elodilles | priteau: ACK, will review in a minute | |
| 15:32:50 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: backport on tempest is not possible, so yes, the regex is the way-forward i think (see my comment: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/958200/2#message-f75c8b173bbd03f257e96a5291b4db82f9b3d4c8 ) | |
| 15:34:16 | sean-k-mooney | the proble is that cinder and other project likely also have those tests runnning | |
| 15:34:27 | sean-k-mooney | so the regex change will impact far more then nova | |
| 15:46:36 | elodilles | sean-k-mooney: oh i see :S then probably we have to set the exclude regex in job definition directly, so that will fix more jobs in multiple repositories, though i guess we won't fix everything in one single place :/ | |
| 16:01:29 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Address issues with images APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/956102 | |