December 2023 - openstack-discuss

[neutron][vpnaas][ovn] Pushing VPNaaS support through OVN
by Mohammed Naser 12 Feb '24

12 Feb '24

Hi all! One of the biggest show stoppers for us for OVN is VPNaaS but I think it’s time that we’d like to be involved in getting it over the line, I want to thank Bodo who has shown a lot of patience in getting the code necessary, and it seems that the code works for them in production as well. I’d like to ask if possible for folks to review these two outstanding changes: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-tempest-plugin/+/847007 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-vpnaas/+/765353 I know Slawek had some concerns, so hoping that raising via the email list if Bodo can address those and over the next bit of time we can get this landed in, since it even has actual proper testing both in CI and with user feedback. Thanks! Mohammed

6 8

about magnum capi for production
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 07 Feb '24

07 Feb '24

Hello guys. Could you share with me some experience about using Magnum CAPI in production? https://github.com/vexxhost/magnum-cluster-api Thank you so much. Nguyen Huu Khoi

6 44

[all] SQLAlchemy 2.x support in Bobcat
by Thomas Goirand 02 Feb '24

02 Feb '24

Hi, As you may know, and to my great frustration, I'm not the maintainer of SQLAlchemy in Debian, even though OpenStack is the biggest consumer of it. The current maintainer insists that he wants to upload SQLA 2.x in Unstable, potentially breaking all of OpenStack. At the present moment, if I understand correctly, we're not there yet, and Bobcat doesn't have such a support. It would be ok for me, *IF* there are patches available on master, that I could backport to Bobcat and maintain in the debian/patches folder of each project. However, the biggest current annoyance, is that I have no idea where we are at. Are we close to such a support? Is there a list of patches to apply on top of Bobcat that is maintained somewhere? Please enlighten me... :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

5 10

What are the correct auth caps for Ceph RBD clients of Cinder / Glance / Nova
by Christian Rohmann 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Hey openstack-discuss, I am a little confused about correct and required Ceph authx permissions for the RBD clients in Cinder, Glance and also Nova: When Glance is requested to delete an image it will check if this image has depended children, see https://opendev.org/openstack/glance_store/src/commit/6f5011d1f05c99894fb8b…. The children of Glance images usually are (Cinder) volumes, which therefore live in a different RBD pool "volumes". But if such children do exist a 500 error is thrown by Glance API. There also is an bug about this issue on Launchpad [3]. Manually using the RBD client shows the same error: > # rbd -n client.glance -k /etc/ceph/ceph.client.glance.keyring -p > images children $IMAGE_ID > > 2023-12-13T16:51:48.131+0000 7f198cf4e640 -1 > librbd::image::OpenRequest: failed to retrieve name: (1) Operation not > permitted > 2023-12-13T16:51:48.131+0000 7f198d74f640 -1 librbd::ImageState: > 0x5639fdd5af60 failed to open image: (1) Operation not permitted > rbd: listing children failed: (1) Operation not permitted > 2023-12-13T16:51:48.131+0000 7f1990c474c0 -1 librbd::api::Image: > list_descendants: failed to open descendant b7078ed7ace50d from pool > instances:(1) Operation not permitted So it's a permission error. Following either the documentation of Glance [1] or Ceph [2] on configuring the ceph auth caps there is no mention of granting anything towards the volume pool to Glance. So this is what I currently have configured: > client.cinder > key: REACTED > caps: [mgr] profile rbd pool=volumes, profile rbd-read-only > pool=images > caps: [mon] profile rbd > caps: [osd] profile rbd pool=volumes, profile rbd-read-only > pool=images > > client.glance > key: REACTED > caps: [mgr] profile rbd pool=images > caps: [mon] profile rbd > caps: [osd] profile rbd pool=images > > client.nova > key: REACTED > caps: [mgr] profile rbd pool=instances, profile rbd pool=images > caps: [mon] profile rbd > caps: [osd] profile rbd pool=instances, profile rbd pool=images > When granting the glance client e.g. "rbd-read-only" to the volumes pool via: > > # ceph auth caps client.glance mon 'profile rbd' osd 'profile rbd > pool=images, profile rbd-read-only pool=volumes' mgr 'profile rbd > pool=images, profile rbd-read-only pool=volumes' > the error is gone. I am wondering through if this is really just a documentation bug (at OpenStack AND Ceph equally) and if Glance really needs read-only on the whole volumes pool or if there is some other capability that covers asking for child images. All in all I am simply wondering what the correct and least-privilege ceph auth caps for the RBD clients in Cinder, Glance and Nova would look like. Thanks Christian [1] https://docs.openstack.org/glance/latest/configuration/configuring.html#con… [2] https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rbd/rbd-openstack/#setup-ceph-client-authen… [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/2045158

6 15

[murano][heat][mistral][tc] Maintenance of yaql library
by Takashi Kajinami 21 Jan '24

21 Jan '24

Hello, The yaql library is currently maintained under murano's governance and is used by not only murano but a few other projects such as heat and mistral. In heat the library is essential since we introduced yaql function support. Looking at gerrit groups, I noticed the yaql library is maintained by a very small core group[1] and release group[2], but I'm afraid most of the people in these groups are no longer active in the community. Because heat is dependent on the library, I'm wondering if some of the heat cores can be added to these two groups so that we (at least I) can help maintaining the library. I've checked the changes merged into murano repo for these two years but iiuc all of these changes are gate fix. Also a dummy change[3] indicates that its CI is currently broken. If the murano project is no longer active then I'm also willing to take over yaql and bring it to heat's governance (of cause only if it's acceptable). I'll add the current PTL as cc, but please let me know if anyone has any opinion or concern. # I'll add mistral tag because the project is also dependent on yaql. # Also tc is added because this discussion is related to project governance. Thank you Takashi Kajinami [1] https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/cba4f6fd54c3cc0d5706fc50b5ebd758860… [2] https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/d5e894b34e5ab5a9fc2938a0d4e7bc76fd2… [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/murano/+/901888

3 7

[heat] Propose retirement of heat-cfnclient
by Takashi Kajinami 16 Jan '24

16 Jan '24

Hello, In heat project, we have had the heat-cfnclient library which contains the client utilities to consume AWS-compatible APIs in heat. However this repository is not properly maintained and I doubt that anyone is using (or even can use) it with recent Heat. - The repository still contains the utility for CloudWatch API which was already removed from heat - The heat-cfn command relies on Keystone v2 instead of v3 - No release has been made since the repository was created Based on the current situation I'd propose retiring the repository. I'd appreciate any feedback and if I hear no objections then I'll start the official process to retire the repository. Thank you, Takashi

2 3

[nova][release][tooz] Hold your rechecks
by Sylvain Bauza 10 Jan '24

10 Jan '24

Hey folks, FWIW, our grenade check on SLURP upgrades is 100% failing now [1] due to a behavioural change in the tooz library [2] that's pulled by Cinder and which was released [3] and delivered to upper-contraints yesterday [4] There are different possibilities in order to unblock the gate, but until one of them is agreed and merged, please avoid wasting our CI resources by asking to recheck for something which will fail. Thanks, -Sylvain (who will send an email once the job is back up) [1] https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?job_name=grenade-skip-level-alw… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tooz/+/891355 [3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/899966 [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/901131

4 6

[designate] Proposal to deprecate the agent framework and agent based backends
by Michael Johnson 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

TLDR: The Designate team would like to deprecate the backend agent framework and the agent based backends due to lack of development and design issues with the current implementation. The following backends would be deprecated: Bind9 (Agent), Denominator, Microsoft DNS (Agent), Djbdns (Agent), Gdnsd (Agent), and Knot2 (Agent). Designate includes many backend DNS server drivers[1], many of which are "native" (also known as xfr type backends) backend implementations. In addition to the "native" backends, Designate has an agent backend[2] that supports other backends via an agent process. To quote the agent backend documentation[2]: This backend uses an extension[3] of the DNS protocol itself to send management requests to the remote agent processes, where the requests will be actioned. The rpc traffic between designate and the agent is both unauthenticated and unencrypted. Do not run this traffic over unsecured networks. Here are the reasons we are proposing to deprecate the agent framework now: 1. The agent protocol used by Designate is using an "unassigned"[4][5] DNS opcode (14) that is causing problems with the dnspython library >= 2.3.0 which is now validating the opcode when building DNS messages. It is a bad practice to use "unassigned" values as they may be officially assigned at any time, likely with an incompatible message format. 2. The agent backends are not tested in the OpenStack jobs[1]. 3. Many of the agent backends have been marked as "Experimental" since 2016 with no additional contributions beyond general repository code maintenance. 4. The protocol between the Designate worker process and the agent process is unauthenticated and unencrypted. 5. We do not know of a development resource to rewrite the agent framework protocol to address issue #1 and #4 above. 6. The introduction of catalog zones[6] may eliminate the need for some of the agent based backend drivers. By marking the agent framework and agent based backends "deprecated" in the Antelope cycle, we would remove the code no earlier than the "C" release of OpenStack (per the OpenStack deprecation policy[7]). In the meantime, issue #1 has been worked around by overriding the dnspython opcode validation[7] as needed in the Designate code (similar to a monkey patch). This is not a sustainable long term solution. The following backend agent based drivers would be marked "deprecated" in addition to the agent framework itself: Bind9 (Agent) Denominator Microsoft DNS (Agent) Djbdns (Agent) Gdnsd (Agent) Knot2 (Agent) We plan to propose patches for the deprecation over the next week, but will not merge them until at least January 24th to allow time for comment from the community. If you have concerns about this deprecation plan or are interested in rewriting the agent framework protocol to address the above issues, please reply to this announcement. Michael [1] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/support-matrix.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/backends/agent.html [3] https://github.com/openstack/designate/blob/master/designate/backend/privat… [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6895.html#section-2.2 [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-pa… [6] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08.txt [7] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/deprecation.html [8] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/870678

3 13

[octavia][neutron] ask about LB with DVR
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Hello guys. I see that more and more people use Octavia but it depends on network nodes which cause bottlenecks or single point of failure . I would like to know if we have some plan to make Octavia works without network nodes. Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

2 4

LVM Cinder
by Jorge Visentini 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Hi all! My scenario: We currently use oVirt and are studying the possibility of migrating to OpenStack in the future. Today we use Storages Enterprise 3PAR and Dell PowerVault. I've even tried to integrate 3PAR, but it's too complex for me for now... Stupid question... If I work directly with LVM, that is, deliver a LUN to all my hosts, create an LVM and deliver it to Cinter, will I have the Live Migration, HA instances, snapshot and other features ? Cheers! -- Att, Jorge Visentini +55 55 98432-9868

6 10