April 2025 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

rally/tempest
by jacek.grodkowski＠asseco.cloud 22 Apr '25

22 Apr '25

Hi I have problem with rally/tepest - docker container rally - release 4.1.0 openstack environment is correct visible from rally tempest plugin is correct visible from rally no matter, does rally is running from rally user or root user every time after : rally verify start i receive 2025-04-10 13:13:48.318 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context tempest@default setup() finished in 6.84 sec 2025-04-10 13:13:48.318 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context testr@default setup() finished in 0.03 msec 2025-04-10 13:13:50.036 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context testr@default cleanup() started 2025-04-10 13:13:50.037 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context testr@default cleanup() finished in 0.19 msec 2025-04-10 13:13:50.037 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context tempest@default cleanup() started 2025-04-10 13:13:54.021 1139 INFO rally.task.context [-] Verification b24ff97f-55c8-4ff3-9ade-1745eb6f821d | Context tempest@default cleanup() finished in 3.98 sec 2025-04-10 13:13:54.030 1139 INFO rally.api [-] Verification (UUID=d92179d4-93d4-4805-8703-9861d9ce55cc) has been successfully finished for deployment 'my_openstack' (UUID=f4746f40-8527-4e79-8ce7-9196544db770)! ====== Totals ====== Ran: 0 tests in 0.000 sec. - Success: 0 - Skipped: 0 - Expected failures: 0 - Unexpected success: 0 - Failures: 0 Using verification (UUID=d92179d4-93d4-4805-8703-9861d9ce55cc) as the default verification for the future operations. rally test - json files, have correct results when i'm using tempest in standalone version i have no problem with making tests

1 0

[PTG] Keystone summary
by Artem Goncharov 22 Apr '25

22 Apr '25

Hey, Sorry for being late. Here comes the summary from Keystone team discussions during the PTG # python-keystoneclient deprecation Following what other services are doing python-keystoneclient is going to be deprecated as a standalone entity. Work in OSC is currently underway to complete the switch to using OpenStackSDK. We want to deprecate python-keystoneclient (another codebase being duplicated) but we also see many services relying on it. We will evaluate the possibilities we have here. # Switch to the DPL model We were discussing whether it makes sense for the Keystone team to switch to the DPL model, but decided to stick to the PTL model while still formally sharing responsibilities among the team members. # External OAuth2.0 Greg gave an update of the current state of the work. We discussed some corner cases as well as tried to figure out which cases (so to say deployment types) it is suitable for and which not. At the moment this approach is suitable mostly to only certain cases # Launchpad maintenance We discussed (and performed) cleanup of the launchpad teams and removed people that are not active anymore (thanks to them for doing that before) # Service accounts Certain future use cases were discussed where introduction of the "service account" concept may be useful (similarly to what they are in K8). I am continuing prototyping on that in my federation rework and will present results once something reasonable is achieved. Major use case for service accounts may be: - workload authentication (like GitHub action, GitLab CI, etc) where a certain workload should be able to authenticate with Keystone without hardcoding a regular "user" account with the password or application credentials - something similar to the AWS STS, or better to say possibility for OpenStack services (in this example Nova) to request a token for the "service account" that can be provisioned into the VM to allow workload inside the VM to auth into the cloud # Reimplementing Keystone in Rust (with Federation rework and advanced auth based on security keys/passkeys/yubikey) I provided an update of the state of reimplementation of Keystone in Rust with the numbers describing performance improvements (10x-100x depending on the use case). Demo for the yubikey auth was given some time ago separately. We discussed how is it possible to consider Keystone following a microservices approach and for the CSPs to deploy Rust reimpl in parallel to the python keystone to start using reworked federation as well as advanced auth flows (auth with the security key) # Ephemeral credentials This discussion was tightly coupled with the previous discussions on OAuth2, service accounts and federation rework. Sadly we are currently not able to implement something similar to the AWS STS with assigning limited scope tokens before we address other issues and introduce service accounts and further explore alternative policy enforcement approaches # OpenPolicyAgent (as an extension over the oslo.policy) Back in 2018 an idea of adding support for OpenPolicyAgent into the oslo.policy was presented. This time we are much further. There is an oslo.policy plugin, converter of policies from the code to the OpenPolicyAgent (rego) language together with automatic tests generation (as well as hacks for Neutron). There is now even the first CSP rolling it out in production. This step allows CSP better integration of OpenStack with other offerings (K8, Ceph, etc) while offering huge flexibility and fine-granular access control desperately desired by CSPs and full authz audit log. Thanks to all participants. Hope to see you during our regular meetings. Keep on doing your great work :-) Regards, Artem

1 0

[publiccloud-sig] Next meeting of Public Cloud SIG - April 23rd at 0700 UTC
by Felix Kronlage-Dammers 21 Apr '25

21 Apr '25

Hi everyone, This upcoming Wednesday (April 23rd) the next meeting of the publiccloud-sig is going to happen. We’ll be meeting at 0700 UTC here: https://meetpad.opendev.org/publiccloud-sig (yes, we're back on the summer schedule) See also here for all other details: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG See you tomorrow! cheers felix -- Felix Kronlage-Dammers Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V. Tel.: +49-30-206539-205 | Matrix: @fkronlage:matrix.org | fkr(a)osb-alliance.com

1 0

[Neurton][OVN] Can Geneve tunnel be disabled ?
by keerthi vassan 21 Apr '25

21 Apr '25

Hello Team We are using ML2+OVN based on Provider Network with Vlan ( no tenant network ) , for hypervisor to hypervisor traffic we are using physical L2 network. We are not using geneve tunnel anymore. How to disable these tunnel in OVN deployment? Is this expected? Regards, Keerthivasan

2 4

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2025.2/R-23)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 21 Apr '25

21 Apr '25

Hello Stackers, I hope you've been enjoying the PTG Summaries posted to this mailing list. As we embark on follow-ups, we have the next 23 weeks to build the 2025.2 "Flamingo" release of OpenStack [1]. Last week, the OpenStack TC didn't merge any significant governance changes. The update this week is short, as we are building up the TC's tracker for activities during this release cycle [2]. === Weekly Meeting === The last weekly meeting of the OpenStack TC was held over IRC on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel on 2025-04-15 [3]. We discussed several short-term follow-ups from the Project Teams Gathering from the prior week, including updates to community goals [4][5]. We noted that the 2025 OpenStack User Survey is live [6]. We may be revising some questions and adding new ones to seek feedback and reflect on the community's work over recent releases. We'll also be reflecting on the 2024 User Survey results when they are available. We briefly discussed the structure and organization of the Project Teams Gathering. The feedback collected [7] so far noted that some found the virtual PTG format exhausting due to constant room-switching without breaks. Some suggestions were made, including incorporating breaks between sessions, seeking agendas early, adding informal sessions like “happy hours,” and encouraging unconference-style meetings. Members generally supported using only 50 minutes of each hour to allow time for decompression. A discussion on i18n was deferred to the next meeting to allow more time to review the context and decide on actionable steps. The next weekly meeting of the OpenStack TC is today, 2025-04-22. It will be held over IRC in OFTC's #openstack-tc channel at 1700 UTC. Please note the change in timing — it is an hour earlier than our past meetings. Please find the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [8]. I hope you'll be able to join us there. Any community member can propose topics to this meeting by editing the wiki page. Please be sure to add your IRC nick so we can call upon you during the meeting. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Add aetos to telemetry project | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/946744 - Fix Dan Smith's email | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/946960 ==== Open for Review ==== - Retire openstack-helm-infra repo | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/947611 - Deprecate openstack-ansible-tests repo | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/947622 - [resolution] Extend scope of VMT to cover all project teams | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/944817 === Upcoming Events === - 2025-04-29: StackConf https://stackconf.eu/ - 2025-04-29: SCS Hackathon / OpenStack Birthday: https://events.sovereigncloudstack.org/hackathon5-2025/ - 2025-05-13: OpenInfra Board Meeting: https://board.openinfra.org/ - 2025-05-22: OpenInfra UG Meetup, Sweden: https://www.meetup.com/openinfra-user-group-sweden/events/306139678/ === How to Contact the TC === You can reach the TC in several ways: - Email: send an email with the tag [tc] on this mailing list. - Ping us using the 'tc-members' keyword on the #openstack-tc IRC channel on OFTC. - Join us at our weekly meeting: The Technical Committee meets every week on Tuesdays at 1700 UTC [8]. Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2025.2 "Flamingo" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html [2] OpenStack TC's 2025.2 Tracker: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker [3] TC Meeting IRC Log 2025-04-15: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-04-15-17.00.html [4] OpenStack TC's 2025.2 PTG Summary: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [5] OpenStack TC's 2025.2 PTG recordings: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhwOhbQKWT7XYzqrx21j1uizxNxnbDf5Q [6] OpenStack User Survey: https://www.openstack.org/user-survey [7] 2025.2 PTG Feedback: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2025_ptg_feedback [8] TC Meeting Agenda, 2025-04-22: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

[oslo] python-consul2 is unmaintained
by Takashi Kajinami 21 Apr '25

21 Apr '25

Hello, I recently noticed that python-consul2 library[1], which is used by the consul coordination driver in tooz, hasn't been updated for 3+ years. Looking at issues in the project, there is an indication that the library is not compatible with ACL API in consul >= 1.11[2]. There is another fork created[3] and this includes fixes to support new API endpoints. Although the driver in tooz does not directly use the feature, I think it's better to discuss our plan to mitigate risks caused by the unmaintained library. As far as I can think of, there are three options now 1. Deprecate consul driver and remove it 2. Keep using python-consul2 now. At least basic functionality is proven to work by our functional tests (Note that the tests do not cover all configuration patterns) 3. Replace python-consul2 by py-consul Before we start the overall discussions I'd like to ask a few questions to the wider audience, as our inputs. - Is anyone using the consul coordination driver now ? - Does anyone have experience with python-consul2 and/or py-consul ? Note that this discussion affects the http messaging driver[4] currently proposed, because it also requires client library to communicate with Consul. Actually I noticed the situation when I noticed that the requirement check job is failing because the library is not part of global requirements list... Thank you, Takashi Kajinami [1] https://github.com/poppyred/python-consul2 [2] https://github.com/poppyred/python-consul2/issues/42 [3] https://github.com/criteo-forks/py-consul [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.messaging/+/912499 -- Takashi Kajinami irc: tkajinam github: https://github.com/kajinamit launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~kajinamit

2 3

[ops][nova] How to modify the nova policy file for server reboot
by federica fanzago 19 Apr '25

19 Apr '25

Dear all, I'm running OpenStack Caracal on AlmaLinux 9.5 and I'm trying to modify the nova policy file to allow the reboot of a server only to the admin and to the owner of the VM (but not to all members of the same project). I have updated the policy (as I already dis for other actions like stop) as follows: "os_compute_api:servers:reboot": "rule:context_is_admin or user_id:%(user_id)s" But the owner is unable to perform the reboot. When I try to reboot one of my own instances I get the following error: >openstack server reboot 97a32e4c-2e56-4d75-b0c4-5ac4da278421 --debug Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/cliff/app.py", line 410, in run_subcommand result = cmd.run(parsed_args) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/osc_lib/command/command.py", line 38, in run return super(Command, self).run(parsed_args) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/cliff/command.py", line 181, in run return_code = self.take_action(parsed_args) or 0 File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/openstackclient/compute/v2/server.py", line 3279, in take_action compute_client.reboot_server(server_id, parsed_args.reboot_type) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/openstack/compute/v2/_proxy.py", line 879, in reboot_server server.reboot(self, reboot_type) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/openstack/compute/v2/server.py", line 353, in reboot self._action(session, body) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/openstack/compute/v2/server.py", line 318, in _action exceptions.raise_from_response(response) File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/openstack/exceptions.py", line 247, in raise_from_response raise cls( openstack.exceptions.ForbiddenException: ForbiddenException: 403: Client Error for url: https://cloud-areapd-test.pd.infn.it:8774/v2.1/servers/97a32e4c-2e56-4d75-b…, Policy doesn't allow os_compute_api:servers:reboot to be performed. clean_up RebootServer: ForbiddenException: 403: Client Error for url: https://cloud-areapd-test.pd.infn.it:8774/v2.1/servers/97a32e4c-2e56-4d75-b…, Policy doesn't allow os_compute_api:servers:reboot to be performed. END return value: 1 Do you know what could be causing this? I’m able to start and stop this same VM without any issues, so I expected reboot to work with the same policy. Thanks, cheers Federica -- Federica Fanzago INFN Sezione di Padova Via Marzolo, 8 35131 Padova - Italy Tel: +39 049.967.7367 --

2 1

[Neurton][OVN] Help With Validation Of ML2/OVN
by keerthi vassan 18 Apr '25

18 Apr '25

Hello Stackers Deployed OVN with Provider network on minimal setup with 3 controllers & 3 compute nodes. We are not using tenant network (only one external network ) for each vlan 2 & Vlan 8 Below is the ping behaviour for vms spread across two hypervisor (different networks ) VM1: 172.168.2.20 (vlan 2 )- SRC-Hyp VM2: 172.168.3.21 (vlan 8 )- Dest-Hyp Source Hypervisor: root@SRC:~# ovs-tcpdump -i patch-br-int-to-provnet-c24e134d-1a3c-4733-941e-0de548325497 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v[v]... for full protocol decode listening on ovsmi688947, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), snapshot length 262144 bytes 15:41:25.900113 IP 172.168.2.20 > 172.168.3.21: ICMP echo reply, id 18, seq 1, length 64 Dest Hyp: root@DEST:~# ovs-tcpdump -i patch-br-int-to-provnet-d33f01e8-6fe9-4597-998c-f6e339ba6386 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v[v]... for full protocol decode listening on ovsmi853421, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), snapshot length 262144 bytes 15:41:25.899394 IP 172.168.3.21 > 172.168.2.20: ICMP echo request, id 18, seq 1, length 64 This is first time with OVS, trying to understand below behaviour why we are seeing echo reply on patch-br-int-to-provnet-c24e134d-1a3c-4733-941e-0de548325497 ? Ideally above will help in transfer traffic from br-int to br-ex via path ( as we have physical interface tagged in br-ex ). Is this expected behaviour ? Can some one please help on this ?

1 0

[neutron][OVN] Help With Validation Of ML2/OVN
by keerthivassan86＠gmail.com 18 Apr '25

18 Apr '25

Hello Stackers Deployed OVN with Provider network on minimal setup with 3 controllers & 3 compute nodes. We are not using tenant network (only one external network ) for each vlan 2 & Vlan 8 Below is the ping behaviour for vms spread across two hypervisor (different networks ) VM1: 172.168.2.20 (vlan 2 )- SRC-Hyp VM2: 172.168.3.21 (vlan 8 )- Dest-Hyp Source Hypervisor: root@SRC:~# ovs-tcpdump -i patch-br-int-to-provnet-c24e134d-1a3c-4733-941e-0de548325497 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v[v]... for full protocol decode listening on ovsmi688947, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), snapshot length 262144 bytes 15:41:25.900113 IP 172.168.2.20 > 172.168.3.21: ICMP echo reply, id 18, seq 1, length 64 Dest Hyp: root@DEST:~# ovs-tcpdump -i patch-br-int-to-provnet-d33f01e8-6fe9-4597-998c-f6e339ba6386 icmp tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v[v]... for full protocol decode listening on ovsmi853421, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), snapshot length 262144 bytes 15:41:25.899394 IP 172.168.3.21 > 172.168.2.20: ICMP echo request, id 18, seq 1, length 64 This is first time with OVS, trying to understand below behaviour why we are seeing echo reply on patch-br-int-to-provnet-c24e134d-1a3c-4733-941e-0de548325497 ? Ideally above will help in transfer traffic from br-int to br-ex via path ( as we have physical interface tagged in br-ex ). Is this expected behaviour ? Can some one please help on this ?

1 0

#eventlet-removal [ptg] 2025.2 Flamingo PTG summary
by Herve Beraud 18 Apr '25

18 Apr '25

Following the intensive discussions at the April 2025 Project Teams Gathering about the Eventlet removal initiative, this thread summarizes the current status, challenges, and strategies of all the OpenStack teams with a transversal perspective. A full and detailed report is available at: https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/openstack/flamingo-ptg/ ## Python 3.13 Compatibility The countdown has begun! As documented in the April 2025 PTG discussions, the OpenStack community is accelerating efforts to remove Eventlet dependencies across all projects. This initiative has become critical due to Eventlet's compatibility problems with Python 3.13 and the upcoming "GILectomy" (PEP 703). With Ubuntu 2025.4 planning to ship Python 3.13 by default, we're facing a hard deadline for this work https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/plucky-puffin-release-schedule/36461 ## Migration Status ### Significant Progress - Octavia: Fully migrated since 2017! Their approach is now documented as a community case study. - Mistral: Almost there with a comprehensive migration approach. - Neutron: Significant progress with numerous patches already merged. - Glance: Can be deployed without Eventlet, though some optional features still need work. ### Work in Progress - Nova: Planning a service-by-service migration with dual-mode support during transition. - Swift: Evaluating alternatives with impressive performance results (FastWsgi showing 10x better performance!). - Manila, Cinder, Heat: All have active plans for the Flamingo cycle. - Designate, Blazar, Watcher: Starting their migration journeys. - Ironic: Facing complex challenges, particularly with the Ironic Python Agent component. ## Technical Spotlight: Oslo.service's Threading Backend A key development is the new threading backend for oslo.service that eliminates the Eventlet dependency: - Review in progress: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.service/+/945720 - No longer provides WSGI support - Each service will need to deprecate implementations dependent on Eventlet's WSGI server ## Migration Strategies: One Size Doesn't Fit All Projects are adopting diverse approaches: - Dual-mode support: Nova and Glance are supporting both Eventlet and native threads during transition - Canary approach: Swift is considering starting with proxy nodes - Component-by-component: Cinder is starting with the Volume Manager - Complete replacement: Heat is planning a full discontinuation of WSGI server implementations ## Nova's Detailed Roadmap Nova has a comprehensive two-cycle plan: Flamingo Cycle (2025.2): - API modernization - Architecture updates with environment variable controls - Performance improvements - Test transition to native threading Guppy Cycle (2026.1): - Core event loop conversion - Adoption of oslo.service's new threading backend ## Issues to Watch: RabbitMQ Heartbeat Problems The problem with RabbitMQ heartbeats story: - Timeouts and API failures in "green" environments - Partial solution using pthreads exists but has logging issues - Track the fix: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/oslo.log/+/937729 ## How to Get Involved - Join the #openstack-eventlet-removal channel on OFTC - Review the official guide: https://removal.eventlet.org/ - Look for patches under the "eventlet-removal" topic: https://review.opendev.org/q/prefixtopic:%22eventlet-removal%22 ## Recommended Reading For teams starting their migration: 1. Official goal documentation: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/remove-eventlet.html 2. Migration preparation guide: https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/preparing-for-migration/ 3. Octavia case study: https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/case-studies/octavia/ ## Stay Updated - The complete version of this report is available online at: https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/openstack/flamingo-ptg/ - Track the progress of the migration across all projects at: https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/openstack/#migration-status Thanks for reading! PS: This PTG summary is based on the etherpads following the April 2025 PTG discussions (https://ptg.opendev.org/etherpads.html) For more details, refer to the full report ( https://removal.eventlet.org/guide/openstack/flamingo-ptg/)

3 4