[oslo] PTG Summary
Juan Osorio Robles
josorior at redhat.com
Mon May 13 04:57:12 UTC 2019
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
> You can find the raw notes on the etherpad
> (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/oslo-train-topics), but hopefully this
> will be an easier to read/understand summary.
> Pluggable Policy
> Spec: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/578719/
> Since this sort of ran out of steam last cycle, we discussed the option
> of not actually making it pluggable and just explicitly adding support
> for other policy backends. The specific one that seems to be of interest
> is Open Policy Agent. To do this we would add an option to enable OPA
> mode, where all policy checks would be passed through to OPA by default.
> An OPACheck class would also be added to facilitate migration (as a rule
> is added to OPA, switch the policy to OPACheck. Once all rules are
> present, remove the policy file and just turn on the OPA mode).
> However, after some further investigation by Patrick East, it was not
> clear if users were asking for this or if the original spec was more of
> a "this might be useful" thing. He's following up with some OPA users to
> see if they would use such a feature, but at this point it's not clear
> whether there is enough demand to justify spending time on it.
The OPA plugin (and the pluggable plugin spec that came from it) was
originally made by me to address the dynamic & centralized policy problem.
Unfortunately I won't be able to continue this work; so if nobody steps up,
I'd have to agree that this can be discarded.
> Image Encryption/Decryption Library
> I mention this mostly because the current plan is _not_ to create a new
> Oslo library to enable the feature. The common code between services is
> expected to live in os-brick, and there does not appear to be a need to
> create a new encryption library to support this (yay!).
> oslo.service SIGHUP bug
> This is a problem a number of people have run into recently and there's
> been some ongoing, but spotty, discussion of how to deal with it. In
> Denver we were able to have some face-to-face discussions and hammer out
> a plan to get this fixed. I think we have a fix identified, and now we
> just need to get it proposed and tested so we don't regress this in the
> future. Most of the prior discussion and a previously proposed fix are
> at https://review.opendev.org/#/c/641907/ so if you want to follow this
> that's the place to do it.
> In case anyone is interested, it looks like this is a bug that was
> introduced with mutable config. Mutable config requires a different type
> of service restart, and that was never implemented. Now that most
> services are using mutable config, this is much bigger problem.
> Unified Limits and Policy
> I won't try to cover everything in detail here, but good progress was
> made on both of these topics. There isn't much to do from the Oslo side
> for the policy changes, but we identified a plan for an initial
> implementation of oslo.limit. There was general agreement that we don't
> necessarily have to get it 100% right on the first attempt, we just need
> to get something in the repo that people can start prototyping with.
> Until we release a 1.0 we aren't committed to any API, so we have
> flexibility to iterate.
> For more details, see:
> oslo.service profiling and pypy
> Oslo has dropped support for pypy in general due to lack of maintainers,
> so although the profiling work has apparently broken oslo.service under
> pypy this isn't something we're likely to address. Based on our
> conversation at the PTG game night, it sounds like this isn't a priority
> anymore anyway because pypy didn't have the desired performance
> oslo.privsep eventlet timeout
> AFAICT, oslo.privsep only uses eventlet at all if monkey-patching is
> enabled (and then only to make sure it returns the right type of pipe
> for the environment). It's doubtful any eventlet exceptions are being
> raised from the privsep code, and even if they are they would go away
> once monkey-patching in the calling service is disabled. Privsep is
> explicitly not depending on eventlet for any of its functionality so
> services should be able to freely move away from eventlet if they wish.
> In general, we got some major features implemented that unblocked things
> either users or services were asking for. We did add two cores during
> the cycle, but we also lost a long-time Oslo core and some of the other
> cores are being pulled away on other projects. So far this has probably
> resulted in a net loss in review capacity.
> As a result, our primary actions out of this were to continue watching
> for new candidates to join the Oslo team. We have at least one person we
> are working closely with and a number of other people approached me at
> the event with interest in contributing to one or more Oslo projects. So
> while this cycle was a bit of a mixed bag, I have a cautiously
> optimistic view of the future.
> Service Healthchecks and Metrics
> Had some initial hallway track discussions about this. The self-healing
> SIG is looking into ways to improve the healthcheck and metric situation
> in OpenStack, and some of them may require additions or changes in Oslo.
> There is quite a bit of discussion (not all of which I have read yet)
> related to this on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/653707/
> On the metrics side, there are some notes on the SIG etherpad (currently
> around line 209): https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DEN-self-healing-SIG
> It's still a bit early days for both of these things so plans may
> change, but it seems likely that Oslo will be involved to some extent.
> Stay tuned.
> No spoilers, I promise. If you made it all the way here then thanks and
> congrats. :-)
> I hope this was helpful, and if you have any thoughts about anything
> above please let me know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss