Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2026-09-02
16:03:48 gibi so I can test a fiz
16:03:49 gibi fix
16:04:30 sean-k-mooney if you push one ill let it run on my mac min for an hour or two in a loop while we wait on ci
16:05:35 gibi yeah working on the cleaniness
16:05:38 gibi of the fix
16:05:48 gibi but I saw having a connection open removing the issue locally
16:09:07 gibi closing the connection is a pain as the place where we need to open it is before the fixture setUp so I cannot register a function via addCleanup. Probably I need to create just an additional fixture for the connection and hope that opening the extra connection a bit after the DB creation is still OK to fix this
16:10:58 sean-k-mooney you can just directlly add it to tearDown
16:11:00 sean-k-mooney if needed
17:46:15 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [func]Avoid WAL checkpointing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003586
17:46:41 gibi sean-k-mooney: ^^
17:47:42 sean-k-mooney cool, the DNM hung when i ran it so ill start running that
17:48:45 sean-k-mooney do you need to handel oterh escptions form the opertunistic test fixture
17:49:00 sean-k-mooney and or only do this when we are uing squlight
17:49:06 sean-k-mooney *sqlite
17:49:23 sean-k-mooney i guess no
17:49:39 sean-k-mooney because you rusign it from _bind_database_fixture_to_file_wal_sqlite
17:50:24 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [func test]Catch hanging task at graceful shutdown https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003266
17:50:44 gibi yepp it is sqlite specific
17:51:11 gibi gmaan: cherry picked https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003266 top of you fix and removed the TODOs, I will check back on the result tomorrow
17:51:32 gibi aaand I drop for today o/
17:51:41 sean-k-mooney o/
17:56:48 gmaan gibi: thanks and o/
17:59:57 sean-k-mooney functional-py313-threading: OK (573.29=setup[8.02]+cmd[0.01,564.34,0.93] seconds)
18:00:12 sean-k-mooney ok im going to run that with --until failure for an hour or so
18:49:02 opendevreview Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: [func test]Catch hanging task at graceful shutdown https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003266
#openstack-nova - 2026-09-03
01:05:37 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: Stabilize _test_interface_attach_and_detach https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003452
02:12:36 opendevreview Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Extract share management from ComputeManager https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/999349
02:12:36 opendevreview Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Support cold migration with virtiofs shares https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/989633
02:12:37 opendevreview Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Reconcile stale Manila share access rules https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001916
03:23:30 opendevreview Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Reconcile stale Manila share access rules https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001916
06:08:08 opendevreview Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: DNM: Add virtiofs share attachment CI jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/999772
08:56:14 gibi can I get some eyes on a simple test stabilizition patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003024 ?
15:39:59 opendevreview Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/os-vif master: Fix typo https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/1003834
15:40:33 opendevreview Ivan Anfimov proposed openstack/os-vif master: Fix typo https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/1003834
16:17:20 stephenfin Uggla: It's not hugely urgent, but I believe I need your +1 on the project-config change when you've time https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/1003848
16:17:54 stephenfin Uggla: Context, in case you haven't seen it yet (I only just sent it) https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/EI44ZQG6UHIBNH3O26KHUVHIE576SCOC/
16:19:09 Uggla Hi stephenfin, ok I'll have a look probably tomorrow. Thx for letting me know.
16:20:49 stephenfin nw
18:40:04 opendevreview Merged openstack/os-vif master: Fix typo https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/1003834
19:13:52 dansmith gouthamr: are you around/
19:14:12 gouthamr hey dansmith, yes i am
19:14:49 dansmith gouthamr: question for you here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001900/comment/801dadc7_d5810626/
19:21:38 dansmith gouthamr: one more while you're looking: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001900/comment/d75c5653_9253dded/
20:11:00 gouthamr ++ good questions, sorry my response took forever - distractions
20:21:57 dansmith gouthamr: might be quicker here as the clock is ticking and I'm running out of gas
20:22:54 dansmith gouthamr: I think I'm reading what you're saying as "this will leave per-host cephx keys stale after it's applied and things have moved enough to fully stop using the old ones? is that right?
20:23:09 dansmith meaning some years down the road, the operator will need to know to go back and clean all those up?
20:26:47 gouthamr dansmith: "per-host cephx keys" are what i'm proposing now (per-host-per-instance).. the old method was just one key: "nova"
20:27:24 gouthamr dansmith: yes, we'll forget that one after this fix is applied, intentionally so that an admin can clean it up later
20:27:32 dansmith perhaps I'm confusing two things here
20:28:03 dansmith currently we have per-host shares with each instance using the same deployment-wide key correct?
20:28:19 dansmith er, sharemapping I guess I should say
20:29:01 gouthamr yes
20:29:19 gouthamr true, one share mapping per host, no matter the number of instances you have
20:29:20 dansmith so there's one sharemapping for the host, and multiple access rules, one per instance
20:29:42 dansmith each access rule is currently using the shared key
20:29:49 gouthamr yes
20:30:21 dansmith after this patch is applied to a running deployment, instances will slowly start to move to the per-host-per-instance key as shares are added/removed, instances move around (I assume), etc right?
20:30:54 dansmith but there could be some long period where half the long-lived instances in a deployment are using the shared key such that the operator can't revoke/remove it right?
20:31:51 JayF If this is the model, it feels almost like you'd need a nova-manage command or other operator instruction on how to know it's safe to rotate the shared credential out
20:32:01 gouthamr (besides moving, you can restart the instances too)
20:32:04 dansmith this is why I'm asking
20:32:32 dansmith because there's not much visibility into when and by what deterministic process this would clean up
20:33:09 gouthamr on the manila side?
20:33:45 JayF gouthamr: here's the key question: in order for the operator to see security benefit, they have to drop the shared "nova" credential. In a large, public-cloud-sized nova deployment, are we giving folks the tools they need to determine they *can* do that?\
20:33:45 gouthamr JayF: yeah, i plan to write it out.. nova-manage isn't needed here because no cruft is left on nova
20:33:55 dansmith so I want to make sure that (a) we're not going to break existing deployments that use the old key (doesn't sound like we will) but that (b) we're not going to create a thing that will only be orphaned in five years when the last thing stops using it, and the operator won't be able to revoke between now and then nor set their alarm for when they can safely clean it up
20:34:15 dansmith JayF: exactamundo
20:34:38 dansmith gouthamr: the reference is stored in your object is it not?
20:35:16 gouthamr (b) is genuinely a worry - you can lose track.. that can happen today.. there's no real way of saying "are you using this credential" (its a universal "problem" with network-attached-storage if you want to generalize)
20:35:57 gouthamr dansmith: no we're actually not storing any metadata specific to an instance on manila.. we're locking the share from deletion, but the lock just says: "locked by nova"
20:36:21 gouthamr i actually think it'd be fine for the lock to say "locked by nova for instance: UUID"
20:36:39 gouthamr but i don't know if Uggla gibi thought that wasn't necessary when they wrote this up
20:36:42 dansmith gouthamr: it's stored in your access_to field in the nova object we store in the DB?
20:37:16 dansmith s/?/right?/
20:37:59 gouthamr dansmith: yeah, manila knows what "access_to" is.. and today there's a shared hardcoded access_to: "nova".. you can filter on this stuff and isolate what all shares have this access
20:38:53 dansmith gouthamr: I'm saying.. there _is_ cruft left in nova (you asserted not above) in the form of the access_to in the object, _and_ that we _could_ provide what JayF and I are asking, which is a roadmap/status display of what has/has not migrated
20:40:06 dansmith right exactly
20:40:09 dansmith and that goes to my other question/concern,
20:40:38 dansmith which is that we're basically giving $specificName a "random" (or at least obfuscated) value which also makes it hard to track.. which is why I asked if it was secret
20:40:46 dansmith as the obfuscation makes it harder to roll your own toolage
20:40:48 gouthamr dansmith: where is this cruft? ShareMapping has no "access_to"... It was hardcoded in the code: https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/ad5e2ea26e3bd80a84e0ab205ceef4200906ded1/nova/db/main/models.py#L756-L797
20:41:52 gouthamr dansmith: is it hard though? the HOST field is known, instance IDs are known, you can query manila and get all the rules that map with this combination and the obfuscation logic
20:41:53 dansmith gouthamr: I hadn't looked at the lower layers.. so your object has the access_to field but you never persist it?
20:42:15 gouthamr dansmith: by my object, you mean manila's database? :)
20:42:28 dansmith gouthamr: you have to start with every host and instance and synthesize all the hashes and then subtract from that global list the ones you see in use
20:42:39 dansmith gouthamr: no, I mean the nova/objects/ object
20:42:47 dansmith gouthamr: this: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001900/6/nova/objects/share_mapping.py#41
20:43:03 JayF dansmith: LN 58 in that file
20:43:13 JayF dansmith: specifically indicates the access_* field is ephemeral
20:43:26 dansmith ack indeed
20:44:15 dansmith okay so no stored cruft in nova.. that's good.. but it would also be (have been) the easiest way to harvest the "how close am I to done?" information from a database I think
20:47:11 dansmith gouthamr: if it's never persisted does that mean we either (a) can get it back from manila or (b) never actually need it again? meaning we can clean up the access rules without the access_to information?
20:47:41 gouthamr imv, the obfuscation is deterministic, and harmless.. solves problems for me not to validate what goes into CONF.host and yet retain something that determines the host identity..
20:48:10 dansmith yeah the "host could really be anything" argument holds weight no doubt
20:48:28 gouthamr dansmith: yes, nova still doesn't need it to be stored; the recomputation thingy kicks in with each grant/deny
20:48:44 gouthamr dansmith: a human would have to pay the cost, but do they really need to?
20:48:45 dansmith gouthamr: okay but that's my question
20:49:14 dansmith gouthamr: if we have an instance today, we apply this patch, then we go to delete the access rules, we can't just recompute access_to right?

Earlier   Later