Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2026-05-28
14:57:27 sean-k-mooney JayF: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/977037
14:57:32 sean-k-mooney so not merged yet
14:57:47 sean-k-mooney JayF: but htat will fix the vtpm issue
14:57:56 sean-k-mooney its an issue for libivrt as well
14:58:29 sean-k-mooney added you to that so you shoudl get a notificaion whn that lands
14:59:46 sean-k-mooney i kind of forgot about that patch if im being honest but looks like i called out the ironic inpact the last tiem i looked :)
15:07:38 sean-k-mooney JayF: so the 3 patchs ye really need are https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/977037 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980676 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/980679/1
15:16:15 sean-k-mooney on other thing that we coudl perhaps look into in the futre is allow nova-compute too run in a active stadby mode or a better way to have muliple nova-computes per shared then the previous hashring approch
15:16:21 JayF sean-k-mooney: I'm not convinced https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/977037 does the same as the downstream does
15:17:02 sean-k-mooney it does not skip the check but it but it remove the laze load overhead
15:17:05 JayF if not self.driver.capabilities.get('can_have_vtpm_instances', True):; return <--- he essentially just added this to the top of _validate_vtpm_configuration
15:17:35 JayF and added that as a driver capability (Which ironic has set to false)
15:17:38 sean-k-mooney ya that replace the expensive lazeload with an if
15:17:41 sean-k-mooney which is also valid
15:17:58 sean-k-mooney yep that will also work
15:18:19 sean-k-mooney but the libvirt driver or any that supprt it in the futre woudl still be needless slwo withouthte other fix
15:18:32 sean-k-mooney we can do both
15:18:36 sean-k-mooney those are not competing
15:19:02 JayF perfect
15:19:30 JayF I should have time this afternoon/tomorrow to look at my normal todo list, which has been cast aside with "do the startup benchmark on nova-compute" at the top for a few weeks
15:19:44 sean-k-mooney hum
15:19:51 sean-k-mooney https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/977037/6/nova/compute/manager.py#1151
15:20:06 sean-k-mooney so that if was ment to skip this on ironic already
15:21:42 sean-k-mooney ...
15:21:46 sean-k-mooney if self.driver.capabilities.get('supports_vtpm', False):
15:21:48 sean-k-mooney return
15:21:54 sean-k-mooney do you see the bug....
15:23:14 sean-k-mooney JayF: a not woudl really help that do the right ting dont you think
15:24:02 sean-k-mooney oh well no
15:24:22 sean-k-mooney https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L1150-L1168
15:24:34 sean-k-mooney the full funtion is
15:25:11 sean-k-mooney workign slightly difetn so if the driver supprot vtpu we return early
15:25:35 sean-k-mooney if if the dreiver does not reprot supprot we check fi there are any isntace that request it
15:25:49 sean-k-mooney and treate that as an error bceaus you for migrated a vm or similar
15:25:56 JayF https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/master/nova/virt/ironic/driver.py#L156
15:26:11 sean-k-mooney the problme with the logic is that
15:26:42 sean-k-mooney for ironic is say it does not supprot it
15:26:58 sean-k-mooney and then we validate all of the instance anyway
15:27:12 sean-k-mooney even though we knwo none of them shoud ever use it
15:27:23 JayF the code you linked is an early return?
15:27:38 JayF if Ironic says we don't support it?
15:28:07 sean-k-mooney if ironic said you did supprot it it would early exit
15:28:15 sean-k-mooney the logic in the validat fuction is incorrect
15:28:30 JayF OH
15:28:33 JayF IT'S REVERSED
15:28:38 sean-k-mooney kind of ya
15:28:56 sean-k-mooney that why i orginall said a not would help
15:29:02 sean-k-mooney what the fucntion is for
15:29:20 sean-k-mooney was to detch instnace that requested vtpm on host where it was disable
15:29:21 JayF Yeah but this flows both ways; this also means you haven't been running this on drivers that *support* it
15:29:32 JayF which seems like a more concerning bug, no?
15:29:42 sean-k-mooney so yes and no
15:29:55 sean-k-mooney this was kind of a tepmey upgrade check of a sort
15:30:10 sean-k-mooney the code is buggy and we shoudl fix it
15:30:17 sean-k-mooney but it s not just buggy for ironic
15:30:22 sean-k-mooney it buggy in general
15:32:28 sean-k-mooney JayF: so the vtpm supprot in the libvirt driver is configurbale
15:32:41 sean-k-mooney JayF: it depen on an addtion software depency called swtpm
15:32:51 sean-k-mooney which when we added the feature was only shiped in some distos
15:32:58 sean-k-mooney so we made thie a boolean flag
15:33:22 sean-k-mooney and this was ment ot prevent start an agent when you have instnace that need vtpm supprot but you have it turn off
15:34:00 sean-k-mooney JayF: ill try and write this up as a bug noting the ironic impact
15:34:14 sean-k-mooney and see if i can hack somethign togheter for this.
15:34:38 sean-k-mooney JayF: but also feel free to push any patches ye have if ye get time
15:42:06 opendevreview sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: Fix unified limits to include all resource types https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/975872
17:38:33 sean-k-mooney JayF: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2154495 is the bug for that by the way
17:39:06 sean-k-mooney adding the new capablity trait is one of the ways to fix that but i am goign to see if i can first create a repoducer and then we can see what the best way forward is
17:39:40 sean-k-mooney im condiering if i just want to wrap the body of the function in a check for the verit driver that is in use or if this check shoudl move into the driver instead
17:40:09 sean-k-mooney all 3 approchs woudl work its just a question fo what is the better long term approch
17:41:40 sean-k-mooney im really not sure why this is not part of self.driver.init_host()
17:41:50 sean-k-mooney given its a driver sepcific check in the first palce
18:16:30 isaacvicente[m] hi o/ is this bug still being tracked? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2065599
18:16:30 isaacvicente[m] there's a patch for this but seems to be abandoned, what you guys think?
18:30:18 sean-k-mooney isaacvicente[m]: having both imageRef": "f2285517-a996-40d3-b331-c8214ec66b77", and destion_type: volume is not invlid nessisarly
18:30:37 sean-k-mooney ppofied the bdm and the imageref are the same
18:31:51 sean-k-mooney the metadata in the domain xml is a debug interface so wether tie image is incldue is mostly cosmetic
18:32:41 sean-k-mooney the real pain poitn woudl be if you were rlying on the presence or absance of the image refe to determin if its a BFV guest
18:32:57 sean-k-mooney that is curerntly really a hack
18:33:32 sean-k-mooney i have argued in the past that the image refence shoudl be aviabel for instnace that are booted form volume
18:34:04 sean-k-mooney if they are created like this or is storead on the volume as volume/image metadata
18:34:47 sean-k-mooney isaacvicente[m]: what is the issue you are actuly having and tryign to adress here?
18:34:58 sean-k-mooney this is not somethign that is beign activly worked on
18:35:25 sean-k-mooney but its also not a priorty to fix as its mostly cosmetic and its unclear that this request is invilad
18:36:11 sean-k-mooney fixing it woudl likely need a new microver version unless we decied to make this a 400 but that would break a set of exiting user where funcitally the call works and had no real negitive side effect
18:36:39 isaacvicente[m] I was searching for bugs to work on and found this, so I wish to know if the issue reported is relevant. If so, I would continue to work on the patch that already exists
18:36:58 sean-k-mooney isaacvicente[m]: oh ok
18:37:10 sean-k-mooney it a inconsitency in the api
18:37:17 sean-k-mooney but likely not one that is worth yoru time
18:37:35 isaacvicente[m] So, as fair as I understand this is not a bug, right? And could break some users' workflow
18:37:51 sean-k-mooney its boarderline
18:38:03 sean-k-mooney fixing it woudl break client that pass both
18:38:13 sean-k-mooney unless we do it via a new microverion
18:38:22 sean-k-mooney which would need a spec and woudl not be backportable
18:38:46 isaacvicente[m] Hmm I get it
18:38:49 sean-k-mooney and if we were to add a new microversion i woudl arrgue it woudl be better to add a boot_form_volume boolean to server show instead
18:39:19 sean-k-mooney and always show the galnce image if aviabel for the root disk regardless of if its boot form voluem or not
18:46:26 sean-k-mooney isaacvicente[m]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2108980 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/954460
18:46:33 sean-k-mooney woudl be nicer to finish
18:49:31 isaacvicente[m] Thanks sean-k-mooney! I will check it out
18:50:26 sean-k-mooney if im being enfitly hone i dont think the lowhangin frut list for nova is really curated to low haning fruit

Earlier   Later