| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-09-04 | |||
| 18:41:26 | gouthamr | yes, mappings | |
| 18:42:13 | sean-k-mooney | sure but as the questions i have been asking imply i have not been folloing the overall work closely | |
| 18:42:18 | melwitt | yeah so it would be get all share mappings for a list of instance uuids rather than doing one by one right | |
| 18:42:26 | sean-k-mooney | but i agree the scalaiblity of the current approch is concerning | |
| 18:42:29 | gouthamr | yeah.. the data model was forcing me with some of these calls in the code.. I'm working on your suggestions to stitch (InstanceList + MigrationList + ShareMappingList) and get a list to parse... one remotable RPC that does all this would help cleanly for sure. but, can i do that in Indri? or would you prefer to have it done now? | |
| 18:45:36 | melwitt | adding a ShareMappingList.get_by_instance_uuids() would be simple enough. do we need more than that? | |
| 18:45:52 | dansmith | gouthamr: what you just described is what I just said we should do in my comment just now | |
| 18:46:15 | sean-k-mooney | or ShareMappingList.get_by_migration_host ? | |
| 18:46:46 | dansmith | gouthamr: I don't think we can/should merge this the way it is, but it would suck to have to punt it all to indri as well.. since you'll have to add RPC changes it won't be backportable either | |
| 18:47:00 | dansmith | melwitt: instance uuids is not enough and it's not even the likely larger list | |
| 18:47:02 | gouthamr | yeah no.. i wasn't looking to backport this stuff | |
| 18:47:48 | gouthamr | its super important for me though to make forward progress on the cold migration :( it makes all of this partially usable before we fix up the hard block on other instance actions that you folks pointed out at the PTG | |
| 18:48:20 | gouthamr | the backport was just going to be for: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001900/ | |
| 18:48:26 | dansmith | yup | |
| 18:48:31 | gouthamr | s/backport/backport request :) | |
| 18:49:41 | gouthamr | ty for this discussion and the comments! | |
| 18:53:15 | sean-k-mooney | gouthamr: i have not looked at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001900 in detail but just looking at the tile im not sure that is backportable | |
| 18:53:56 | gouthamr | sean-k-mooney: oh, read on :P yes, we're moving auth, but it doesn't break anything running until you choose | |
| 18:54:11 | sean-k-mooney | it might be but we have to supprot n-2 compatiblity | |
| 18:54:15 | gouthamr | sean-k-mooney: this will be supplemented with an OSSN/operator guidance on how the move will occur | |
| 18:55:16 | sean-k-mooney | so we need atuth to work with a patched souce node and unpatch dest | |
| 18:55:20 | sean-k-mooney | as an example | |
| 18:55:37 | sean-k-mooney | its too late on a friday for me to really ingest the details | |
| 18:55:56 | gouthamr | sean-k-mooney: it will; on the unpatched destination, we'll use a "shared credential" until that's patched some day | |
| 18:56:32 | gouthamr | sean-k-mooney: yes :) ty for the brainstorm! have a great weekend | |
| 18:57:44 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's really not ideal, I've already raised the concerns | |
| 18:58:13 | sean-k-mooney | ack, im not really sure that shareing a cephx id is a problme | |
| 18:58:17 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: the virtiofs implementation in the tree is sort of "so leaky that it doesn't break upgrades" which is not good but also means that we _can't_ do automatic cleanup there anyway | |
| 18:58:22 | sean-k-mooney | but i woudl have to read the bug to knwo why it woudl be | |
| 18:58:33 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: it's a hardening thing | |
| 18:59:01 | sean-k-mooney | sure but for nova rbd driver we mostly use the same cephx key | |
| 18:59:07 | sean-k-mooney | technially it can vary per host | |
| 18:59:14 | sean-k-mooney | but i dont really knwo of any installer that does that | |
| 18:59:37 | sean-k-mooney | we just use a single nova key on all compute nodes | |
| 19:00:32 | sean-k-mooney | so using shared ceph keyrings between host is not generally a sefutiy issue but i dont really have an object to hardening | |
| 19:01:06 | dansmith | I'm not sure our bad behavior is a justification to do it badly.. but those ceph shares are less user-visible than these I think | |
| 19:01:20 | dansmith | and the current implementation sort of can't even track which hosts should and should not have access to a share as a result | |
| 19:01:44 | sean-k-mooney | ack as i said i have no real issue with hardenign | |
| 19:01:58 | sean-k-mooney | jsut notign that it not the same as nova provisend rbd voluems | |
| 19:02:11 | sean-k-mooney | i think for cidner we are given a cephx key in teh conenciton info to ues | |
| 19:02:16 | sean-k-mooney | possibel per voluem? | |
| 19:02:50 | sean-k-mooney | and as i said ther is nothign prventign you minting a per host key for images_type=rbd today | |
| 19:03:21 | sean-k-mooney | but ya as you said if you have escaped to the host your already have other compomise vector to worry about | |
| 19:07:07 | sean-k-mooney | for the peroupus of share attachment the client of the sheare was desiged to be nova rather then the instnace | |
| 19:07:47 | sean-k-mooney | the same way as nova is the sincel client for ceph voleusm for images_type=rbd | |
| 19:07:53 | dansmith | that's how the code is designed now, but I think that was probably wrong | |
| 19:08:26 | sean-k-mooney | it depend on your pesertive of who own the expore the end user or nova | |
| 19:08:35 | sean-k-mooney | if its nova which is howe we desgiend it its correct | |
| 19:08:40 | dansmith | treating all of nova as a single unit is a bad idea, whether it be shares, volumes, access to the MQ or DB, etc.. in 2010 I think that was a lot more normal but today it seems verging on irresponsible to me | |
| 19:08:48 | gouthamr | ++ | |
| 19:08:58 | sean-k-mooney | if its the end user then the cephex key shoudl be in barbican liek cinder encyption keys | |
| 19:09:49 | sean-k-mooney | right as i said im oke with hardenign but that feels mroe like a security feature then soemthign we would activly backport | |
| 19:10:02 | gouthamr | cephfs != rbd, for RBD, cephx is one of several layers. For a CephFS share, the cephx access rule is the access-control layer.. | |
| 19:10:09 | dansmith | it is and you could surely argue that it's not backport-worthy IMHO | |
| 19:10:35 | gouthamr | even there though, we could make a better choice than having a single shared credential, imo.. | |
| 19:11:01 | sean-k-mooney | gouthamr: we dont require it to be shared in nova today taht up to the installer | |
| 19:11:02 | melwitt | so are we thinking a separate patch for the ShareMappingList.get_share_ids_for_host() to go in front of the reconcile patch? | |
| 19:11:27 | gouthamr | melwitt: i'll fold it in.. | |
| 19:11:37 | melwitt | to try and minimize churn on the reconcile? ok | |
| 19:11:48 | gouthamr | sean-k-mooney: ack, yes, but in this case, it's hardcoded so worse :( | |
| 19:12:12 | gouthamr | melwitt: it was the last patch in the series, so i can fix it up in isolation :) | |
| 19:13:31 | gouthamr | dansmith: i'm exploring psutil.disk_partitions.. i see its being used by quobyte: https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/src/branch/master/nova/virt/libvirt/volume/quobyte.py#L112 | |
| 19:14:04 | dansmith | gouthamr: aha, nice | |
| 19:14:06 | gouthamr | dansmith: it solves my problem of not hemorrhaging on an inaccessible hard mount | |
| 19:16:13 | dansmith | so realistically here.. unfortunately monday is a holiday for many of us | |
| 19:16:29 | dansmith | I wish Uggla was around but I assume merging this on tuesday is pretty dang late | |
| 19:16:48 | dansmith | I almost wish melwitt had been less of a responsible person and sent the bottom patches to the gate already :) | |
| 19:17:54 | sean-k-mooney | so realsticlly , we cut rc1 without this next week, we can still merge this on master it just will be for next cycel if we reapprove the spec | |
| 19:18:14 | sean-k-mooney | and we can repprose that already | |
| 19:18:26 | dansmith | I have no plans for this weekend other than recharging my brokenness.. I'm not really up for reviewing tomorrow but I guess I could come back later today if it happens that it's all ready | |
| 19:19:21 | dansmith | but it's feeling pretty rushed for sure | |
| 19:20:22 | melwitt | I can also review if updated today | |
| 19:21:11 | melwitt | and I can check up on it over the weekend | |
| 19:21:46 | gouthamr | from my (probably biased) vantage point, the reconciliation of rules because we're trying not to wedge instances on cold migration is good hardening.. cold migration will be used no doubt if we shipped this even without the reconciliation - but, we're doing this right and i wouldn't do it differently.. | |
| 19:22:59 | gouthamr | I know of a few <redacted> clouds that would be happy to have this feature land in H.. but they're all really waiting for a day their can hot-attach cephfs and call it a day - it's killing their cloud right now when person 100001 is coming to them to enable this, and they have to tell them they'd have to roll out their own tenant-scoped ceph cluster | |
| 19:23:16 | dansmith | gouthamr: we also know the reconciliation will not be backportable if it becomes more of a problem than you think | |
| 19:23:24 | gouthamr | yes | |
| 19:23:36 | melwitt | yeah, that's the problem, reconcile would not be backportable | |
| 19:23:53 | dansmith | IME instances wedged in the middle of migrations is not that uncommon so I'm nervous about having no path for cleanup for something users can trigger | |
| 19:24:49 | gouthamr | ack; i'll flush this out and test it and have something for your eyes in a bit.. the psutil change was the simplest :) but, the share mapping object update, i'll deep-test | |
| 19:25:09 | melwitt | that is my experience also. maybe the biggest complaint about nova is stuff stuck in a state requiring manual database intervention to recover | |
| 19:25:16 | dansmith | yup | |
| 19:25:36 | dansmith | gouthamr: okay then I'll take a break for a bit so I can be available for a bit later | |
| 19:25:49 | gouthamr | ack, thank you dansmith! | |
| 19:25:55 | gouthamr | same, melwitt and sean-k-mooney! | |
| 20:07:02 | opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Reconcile stale Manila share access rules https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1001916 | |
| 20:07:03 | opendevreview | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/nova master: Only load same-host instances when checking share usage https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1004057 | |
| 20:39:42 | gouthamr | s | |
| 21:10:35 | dansmith | melwitt: looks okay to me | |
| 21:16:25 | gouthamr | dansmith: do you mind me folding follow up comments into a single commit post these merging | |
| 21:16:39 | gouthamr | like a low-risk follow up that'll land next week? | |
| 21:16:48 | dansmith | which comments? | |
| 21:17:22 | gouthamr | you're right about "is_mounted()".. it's a mount path that we're check | |
| 21:17:25 | gouthamr | checking* | |
| 21:17:35 | dansmith | oh yeah that's why I said "not critical to fix right now" | |
| 21:18:07 | gouthamr | ++ ack, ty will watch for melwitt's comments as well | |
| 21:39:29 | melwitt | will be looking | |
| 21:42:14 | gmaan | dansmith: thanks for review on task tracking fix, I replied to your commment https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/1003386/comments/25784b40_6a5b7aad | |
| 21:42:27 | gmaan | if we are ok to do RPC versioning bupm, | |
| 21:43:22 | gmaan | * RPC version bump, then i can add a new RPC cast to end the task which will not impact the dest rollback for old compute mixed env | |