February 2026 - openstack-discuss

[Masakari] team meeting today at 07:00-08:00 UTC
by Sei Sano 18 Mar '26

18 Mar '26

Hi team Apologies for the short notice ― just a reminder that we have our regular team meeting today. When: 07:00 UTC, <day>, <date> Where: #openstack-masakari (OFTC) Agenda: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/masakari-meeting-2026.1 If you have any topics to discuss, please add them to the agenda. Thanks, Sei Sano

6 9

[all][elections][ptl][tc] Combined PTL/TC 2026.2 cycle Election Nominations End
by Ian Y. Choi 16 Mar '26

16 Mar '26

The PTL and TC Nomination period is now over. The official candidate lists for PTLs [0] and TC seats [1] are available on the election website. -- PTL Election Details -- There are 8 projects without candidates, so according to this resolution[2], the TC will have to decide how the following projects will proceed: Adjutant, Masakari, Mistral, Oslo, Requirements, Skyline, Venus, Vitrage There are 2 projects that will have elections: Barbican, Horizon. -- TC Election Details -- The official candidate list is available on the election website[1]. Now begins the campaigning period where candidates and electorate may debate their statements. Polling will start Feb 25, 2026 23:45 UTC. Thank you, [0] https://governance.openstack.org/election/#ptl-candidates [1] https://governance.openstack.org/election/#tc-candidates [2] https://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20141128-elections-process-for…

3 3

[neutron] OVN version used in the functional gate job
by Jakub Libosvar 13 Mar '26

13 Mar '26

Hi all, I wanted to bring this topic up for a discussion again. I’ve been working on a Neutron feature [1] for some time, the feature requires the BGP support in OVN. The functional job currently uses a moving OVN branch based on the OVN LTS version - which is 24.03 - almost 2 years old. I tried to change this and requested a patch to switch to using a pinned OVN mostly for two benefits: - we won’t get gate broken if a bad patch is backported to the branch-24.03 - I get the BGP features needed for the work on [1] The patch was denied to keep the policy we set on ourselves - ie. to go with the branch based on the OVN LTS version. The workaround was to skip multiple tests that rely on the OVN changes specific to BGP. This is not ideal as now majority of the functionality is not tested and we’re just waiting for the LTS release, which may bring some surprises. This was a concrete example but if we put it into a more general situation, in Neutron we heavily rely on OVN and its features and any development of a potential feature that requires some work in OVN gets cumbersome because we can’t validate our code against OVN until the point a next OVN LTS version is released, which in the worst case scenario can take up to 2 years. Hence I propose a change and use a pinned hash from the OVN tree that is updated on two occasions: - A next OVN version is released (non-LTS) - We’re developing a feature that relies on bleeding edge OVN - then we pick a good hash and pin to it in the functional job definition (not in the scripts) This would apply solely to the functional tests because tempest jobs can define their own OVN version and unit tests should be isolated from the used OVN version, and only to the master branch - because that is the development branch after all. Such a change brings multiple benefits, we won’t need to skip tests if the required functionality is not present in current OVN version and have the development go smoother. We may uncover issues in OVN early. We will not get a broken gate if a change containing a bug is backported to OVN stable branch. At this point I can’t see any benefit of using the moving LTS branch, but if there is one please bring it up here. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Kuba [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/neutron-specs/src/branch/master/specs/2025.2/… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/961243

5 9

[Keystone][ldap] Keystone bind request to ldap not able to interpret if the user's password is expired.
by Sharath Ck 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hi, I have configured Keystone with 389ds as backend. 389ds server is configured with password policy and pwdmustchange is set to true. However on first login attempt from keystone to request token for user in 389ds is resulting in successful bind request. Perhaps, 389ds is providing control ID - control: 2.16.840.1.113730.3.4.4 in the response. But keystone is not able to interpret the control ID and provide a token with full access. Is it not possible for keystone to respond token with minimum scope to only change password? Or any response attribute to specify password is expired and needs to be changed? Kindly help with any configuration that may interpret the password expiry of ldap user and can be used in token response. P.S: configuring user_enabled_attribute to check nsAccountLock will not work as ldap user's password would be expired but not locked. user_enabled_attribute = nsAccountLock user_enabled_mask = 0 user_enabled_invert = true user_enabled_default = true Regards, Sharath

3 3

[keystone] App Credential reactivation after reconnection is not immediate
by Vincent Godin 08 Mar '26

08 Mar '26

If you create a 24-hour credential application with a non-local user who has a 2-hour time-to-live (default_authorization_ttl), after 2 hours the TTL resets to 0 and the credential application stops working, which is expected. If the user logs back in, there's a waiting period before the credential application becomes functional again, and the same applies if the user want to create a new credential application. I've noticed that if the user leaves a group with member privileges, for example, their app credentials are immediately invalidated. The same behavior should occur when the user logs back in after the TTL expires.

2 1

[Nova][vms]Preventing VM I/O Errors When Ceph OSD Nodes Go Down
by Thamanna Farhath 07 Mar '26

07 Mar '26

Dear Community, We are running OpenStack 2023.1 with Ceph as the backend storage on a 3-node deployment. Recently, we faced a scenario where two of our servers became unresponsive (hung state), and we had to reboot them. During this time, VMs running on the affected compute node started reporting I/O errors inside the guest OS, such as: [ 33.911093] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev vda, sector 229880 op 0x1:(WRITE) flags 0x800 phys_seg 2 prio class 0 [ 33.914953] Buffer I/O error on dev vda1, logical block 319, lost async page write [ 33.914953] Buffer I/O error on dev vda1, logical block 320, lost async page write [ 33.927594] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev vda, sector 229904 op 0x1:(WRITE) flags 0x800 phys_seg 2 prio class 0 It appears that when Ceph becomes unavailable (or quorum is lost), the VMs continue attempting writes, which results in I/O errors at the guest OS level. Our goal: We would like to prevent guest filesystem corruption or I/O errors when Ceph is down. Ideally, we want to: Pause or block writes from active VMs when Ceph storage is unavailable Avoid guest OS filesystem corruption Ensure safer recovery when Ceph services are restored Disclaimer : The content of this email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and remove the messages from your system. If you are not the named addressee, it is strictly forbidden for you to share, circulate, distribute or copy any part of this e-mail to any third party without the written consent of the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, or may contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email."

4 8

[neutron] multicast and allowed address pairs
by Bence Romsics 05 Mar '26

05 Mar '26

Hi Neutrinos, We have a user who discovered that two neutron backends behave differently when it comes to handling multicast traffic. This user runs servers that need multicast for VRRP coordination (the point is multicast, not VRRP). They discovered that with the (no longer upstream supported) OpenDaylight backend, they need to let the multicast traffic through with an allowed address pair. On the other hand, the ml2/ovs backend (here always assuming the ovs firewall driver) allows the multicast traffic by default. If you add the same allowed address pair (for example: {'mac_address': '01:00:5e:00:00:64', 'ip_address': '224.0.0.100'}) as with OpenDaylight, it actually breaks multicast traffic. The traffic breaks even on other servers, affected by the same set of flows installed by ovs-agent. My question is: which backend behaves correctly? And do we need to change anything upstream? Since I found the following upstream history... https://opendev.org/openstack/neutron/src/branch/master/doc/source/admin/co… https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1889631 ... I believe that ml2/ovs (with the ovs fw driver) behaves correctly when it lets the multicast traffic through by default. However I believe it is a bug that the traffic breaks when the user adds the allowed address pair. But I think it would be pretty pointless to start fixing the traffic itself since we would need to make changes for no effect. Rather we could reject allowed address pairs with multicast IPs/MAC addresses, because that would call the attention of the user that multicast traffic is already handled at a different place (that is the default behavior of the fw driver). I also believe that the OpenDaylight driver is buggy when it does not let the multicast traffic through just like ml2/ovs does. However this is not an upstream problem anymore, since networking-odl is long deprecated. Do you agree in the judgement where the bugs are in this case? The possible upstream change: Do you think we should start rejecting allowed address pairs with multicast IPs/MAC addresses? Plus I guess a doc update for allowed address pairs api-ref is due... If needed, I'm happy to bring this to the drivers meeting. It's 100% that I could attend next Friday (6th of March) and 80% for this Friday (27th of February). Thanks, Bence

3 3

[election][barbican] PTL Candidacy for the 2026.2 Release Cycle
by Mauricio Harley 04 Mar '26

04 Mar '26

Hi, everyone. I would like to continue serving as PTL for Barbican during the 2026.2 cycle. Over the past cycle, I worked to keep the project healthy and aligned with OpenStack's evolving standards. Key achievements include dropping the unmaintained repoze.profile dependency, adopting oslo.middleware's common RequestId implementation, fixing CI nodeset configurations for the Dogtag functional tests, and maintaining release notes across stable branches. I have also ensured alignment with upstream tooling and supported ongoing maintenance across barbican-ui, barbican-tempest-plugin, and openstack-ansible-os_barbican. As the current PTL, I am familiar with the project's codebase, its integration points with other OpenStack services, and our operator community's needs. I am committed to continuing this work, ensuring Barbican remains a reliable secrets management solution, and fostering collaboration with contributors and downstream consumers. I respectfully ask for your support in the upcoming election. Maurício Harley (mharley)

2 1

[ops][largescale-sig][scientific-sig][publiccloud-sig] Ops Radio Hour on February 27, 2026
by Ildiko Vancsa 02 Mar '26

02 Mar '26

Hi OpenStack community, I'm reaching out to you with a friendly reminder that the next OpenStack Ops Radio Hour[1] is scheduled to happen on __February 27th, 2026 at 1300UTC,__ which is this Friday! The call series is a casual setting for operators, engineers, and contributors to come together, share knowledge, and collaborate on the complexities of managing and deploying OpenStack environments. We have a packed agenda for this call: - OpenStack HA architectures with guest attendee Tyler Stachecki - How to do OpenStack Backups? - How do people automate their clouds? - Update on Ops Radio Hour Survey results If you have further topics you would like to dive into during the call, please add them to this etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour A few reminders: - The group on the call agreed to try out Matrix as a chat platform for more synchronous communication outside calls + You can access the Matrix room here: https://matrix.to/#/#openstack-ops:opendev.org<https://matrix.to/#/%23openstack-ops:opendev.org> <https://matrix.to/#/%23openstack-ops:opendev.org%3Chttps://matrix.to/%23/%2…> + Further details are here: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… - If you would like to read and catch up on notes from previous calls, you can find them in this etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour See you on the call on February 27th! Bets Regards, Ildikó [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups

1 1

[manila] 2026.1 Gazpacho bugsquash - Mar 2nd - 5th
by Carlos Silva 27 Feb '26

27 Feb '26

Hello, zorillas and interested stackers. The 2026.1 Gazpacho bug squash is happening next week and we will be focusing on closing in-progress bugs and reviews. Vida (vhari) worked on the bugsquash etherpad [1]. In case you'd like to work on a bug that is not on the list, please add it. The kick-off meeting will happen on March 2nd at 1500 UTC on meetpad [2] and the March 5th manila weekly meeting slot will be used for the bugsquash. In case you intend to participate, please add the meeting's .ics file [3] to the calendar of your preference. Looking forward to it! [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-gazpacho-bugsquash [2] https://meetpad.opendev.org/p/manila-gazpacho-bugsquash [3] https://gist.github.com/silvacarloss/9ad40610c78655dba3dd5ed256c6b978 Regards, carloss

1 0