- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2026.1/R-18)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hello Stackers, We're eighteen weeks away from the date of the coordinated release of OpenStack 2026.1 "Gazpacho" [1]. Next Thursday is the deadline for project deliverables following the "trailing" [2] release model to ship their final releases for the OpenStack 2025.2 "Flamingo" release. This includes packaging, deployment, configuration, and lifecycle tooling projects that have bundled the goodness of the past release in a consumable way. The rest of the OpenStack project teams are in the thick of the Gazpacho roadmaps they've drawn for themselves. Now is a good time to ensure that any project-specific deadlines are added to the community's release calendar [1], like the Nova and Manila project teams have done. In the past week, the OpenStack Technical Committee did not make any major governance updates. We continued work on bringing the Special Interest Groups under the "openstack/governance" repository so we can provide them with the increased focus, visibility, and oversight that they currently lack. We also made significant progress on the retirement of the Monasca project deliverables; we hope to conclude it soon. === Weekly Meeting === The TC met on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel on November 18, 2025 [3]. This was the second occurrence of our monthly meeting at an APAC-friendly time. We do hope to energize the community into focused discussions in this new, periodic slot. Bear with us while we get past our teething troubles here. The meeting focused on moving several stale volunteer-needed items, such as analyzing the user survey results and reworking FIPS requirements, to the TC tracker due to a lack of current interest or traction. We discussed the Zuul errors on the cleanup patches concerning the Monasca project. We noted that it was past time to get this done, especially since some potential users claimed that their use case was at least a year out. Retiring a project within OpenStack is not the end of the road for the project. Volunteers are welcome to fork the project and continue its development outside OpenStack's governance. We do hope that Monasca continues to be developed outside the aegis of OpenStack's governance, and can return someday when there is interest to drive it within this community. The TC also discussed the proposed oslo.wsgi library and deemed it a good idea and will welcome any governance patches. The health of the gate looks good, with recent Gerrit and Gitea updates proceeding smoothly. The discovery of a new Zuul feature allowing the scheduler to be paused during Gerrit unavailability was identified as a time-saver. The next meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee is on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 1700 UTC. The meeting will be hosted on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel. Please find the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [4]. I hope you'll be able to join us. === Governance Proposals === ==== Open For Review ==== * Show SIG repositories on the SIGs page | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/967425 * [resolution] Retire governance-sigs repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/966645 * Retire Monasca project | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671 * 2025-11-17 Retirement and Handover of the os-net-config Project | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/967463 === Upcoming Events === * 2025-12-04: 2025.2 release deadline for "cycle-trailing" projects * 2025-12-09: OpenInfra Board meeting: https://board.openinfra.org/ * 2026-01-08: 2026.1 Milestone 2 Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2026.1 "Gazpacho" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/gazpacho/schedule.html [2] OpenStack release models: https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html [3] TC Meeting IRC Log, Nov 18, 2025: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-11-18-17.01.html [4] TC Meeting Agenda, Nov 25 2025: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 1

[qa] devstack & hacking core member updates
by Ghanshyam Maan 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hello everyone, I would like to propose the following updates to the devstack and hacking project core member list: Devstack: - Adding gibi in devstack core. He has been fixing and helping in devstack for a long time. Hacking: - Adding stephenfin and sean-k-mooney in the hacking core members list. Both have a good understanding of hacking projects and helping there on a need basis. - Frickler and I are part of the hacking core, but via included groups. I will be moving both to the core member list explicitly. Feel free to provide your feedback. If there are no objections by this Friday (21st Nov), I will update the gerrit group. -gmaan

2 2

[tc][horizon]Request for guidance on improving Python PTI doc to include pytest for Horizon plugins testing
by Chandan Kumar 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hello TC, We are writing to seek your guidance regarding the Python testing standards (PTI) as they relate to Horizon plugins. The current integration tests of the watcher-dashboard project (the Horizon plugin for OpenStack Watcher) are broken due to integration code changes in the Horizon integration suite. We are currently working on rewriting the watcher-dashboard integration tests. We noted that the Horizon project itself has developed a robust set of reusable, pytest-based integration tests, fixtures, tox targets and zuul job[1]. We also see that other plugins, like manila-ui, are already reusing these pytest fixtures.[2]. Several other projects within the OpenStack ecosystem (such as skyline-apiserver, rally, and projects under the Airship and StarlingX namespaces) are already using pytest. This presents a conflict for the Watcher team. The official Python PTI states that tests should be written using the Python stdlib unittest module[3]. The Watcher team advocates for adhering to the Python PTI and using unittest. Our main watcher project uses unittest, and we prefer to maintain this standard for consistency and PTI compliance in watcher-dashboard. This topic came up during watcher PTG discussion[4]. This leaves us with a dilemma: - Follow the Python PTI: This aligns with the PTI and our team's standards but requires us to ignore Horizon's reusable pytest tests and build our own testing framework from scratch, duplicating effort. - Follow the parent project (Horizon) to use pytest to reuse their fixtures. This would be more efficient but appears to violate the Python PTI and creates inconsistency with our main project. - Do we want to improve Python PTI documentation to include pytest usage? We just need guidance on this topic. Links: [1]. https://github.com/openstack/horizon/tree/master/openstack_dashboard/test/s… [2]. https://github.com/openstack/manila-ui/tree/master/manila_ui/tests/selenium [3]. https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/pti/python.rs… [4]. https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.1-ptg#L404 With Regards, Chandan Kumar

10 22

[kolla] Cancelling weekly meeting on 26th Nov 2025
by Michał Nasiadka 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hello Koalas, We need to cancel the weekly meeting this week due to unavailability of key participants (including me). See you on the meeting 3rd of Dec. Cheers, Michal

1 0

[Neutron][VPNaaS] Multiple tunnels per IPSec Service
by Shubham Yadav 24 Nov '25

24 Nov '25

Hello OpenStack Community, I'm working with OpenStack VPNaaS (using strongSwan as the backend driver) and have a question about tunnel configuration capabilities. *Current Setup:* OpenStack VPNaaS with strongSwan driver (StrongSwanDriver) Single VPN Service (gateway) with multiple IPSec Site Connections Each connection targets different remote peers with distinct subnets *Configuration Details:* VPN Service: Connected to a single router Multiple IPSec Site Connections under the same VPN Service: Connection 1: To MY office (10.10.100.0/24) via peer 68.x.y.34 Connection 2: To Rackspace (172.24.60.0/22) via peer 184.n.p.53 Shared IKE and IPSec policies across connections Local endpoint groups covering multiple subnets (192.168.0.0/24, 10.43.0.0/16) *Question:*Is it supported/recommended to have multiple IPSec Site Connections under a single VPN Service? I understand this creates multiple tunnels from the same OpenStack router to different remote peers. *Current Issue:*One of my connections shows "PENDING_CREATE" status while the other is "ACTIVE". I'm trying to determine if this is: A configuration issue on my end A limitation of having multiple tunnels per VPN service A strongSwan-specific behavior in the OpenStack context *Specific Questions:* Does VPNaaS officially support multiple IPSec connections per VPN Service? Are there any known limitations or best practices when using multiple tunnels? Should each remote site have its own dedicated VPN Service instead? I've checked the documentation but couldn't find clear guidance on multi-tunnel scenarios. Any insights from the community would be greatly appreciated. *Environment:* OpenStack version: 2024.2 Dalmatian Neutron VPNaaS with strongSwan backend Kubernetes-deployed OpenStack (OpenStack-Helm) Thank you for your time and assistance! Best regards, Shubham

2 1

[tacker] Cancelling weekly IRC meeting
by Yasufumi Ogawa 23 Nov '25

23 Nov '25

Hi team, Due to a holiday in Japan and most of team members aren't join, I'm cancelling meeting this week. Regards, Yasufumi

1 0

[ops][largescale-sig][scientific-sig][publiccloud-sig] Ops Radio Hour on November 21, 2025
by Ildiko Vancsa 22 Nov '25

22 Nov '25

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 __November 21st, 2025 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 had a great discussion at the last meeting about how to refactor Ops-related activities - See Thierry's email for initial details: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… - Meeting notes from October 31st: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour This upcoming call is a great opportunity to discuss and take next steps towards a more cohesive way for Ops folks to gather, discuss challenges and possible solutions, and onboard new operators and users to the community! 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 November 21st! Bets Regards, Ildikó [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups

1 1

[nova][libvirt][qemu] Windows 11 Nested Virtualization Boot Loop on OpenStack (Emerald Rapids Hosts)
by Hai Pham Thanh 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Hi community, We would like to report an issue we are encountering with nested virtualization on Windows 11 instances running on OpenStack. On our OpenStack platform, a Windows 11 VM becomes unable to boot after enabling Virtual Machine Platform/Hyper-V inside the VM and performing a hard reboot (VM does not show a BSOD but fails to boot into the OS and gets stuck in a boot loop in Tianocore logo). This issue does not occur on Windows 10 under the same conditions. System: * Compute node CPU: Intel Xeon Gold 6538Y+ (Emerald Rapids) with nested virtualization is enabled. * OpenStack 2024.2 * libvirt 8.0.0 * QEMU API 8.0.0 * QEMU hypervisor 6.2.0 Initially, our Nova CPU configuration was: * cpu_mode=host-model * cpu_model_extra_flags=+vmx,-hypervisor,-xsaves According to virsh dumpxml, host-model maps to Icelake-Server. We tested several cpu_mode=custom configurations and observed the following: * cpu_models=Icelake-Server-noTSX → error (boot loop) * cpu_models=Icelake-Server → error (boot loop) * cpu_models=Broadwell-noTSX-IBRS → works * cpu_models=Cascadelake-Server-noTSX → works The working models correspond to the Preferred CPU models recommended by QEMU: https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/system/qemu-cpu-models.html#preferred-c… We would like to ask: 1. Has anyone encountered this issue with Windows 11 + nested virtualization on Icelake/Emerald Rapids hosts? 2. Are there known root causes explaining why newer CPU models fail while preferred (older) models work? 3. Is there a recommended fix other than switching to a preferred older CPU model? Best regards, Hai Pham

4 5

[kolla-ansible][firewalld] Initializing firewall rules for new services
by Jonathan Proulx 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Hi All, Continuing to run through my expoy testing depoly I enabled firewalld management (I think) with: disable_firewall: "false" enable_external_api_firewalld: "true" After predeplying firewalld on the control nodes and adding the public IP interface and an ssh allow rule (and a few other internal allows for $REASONS). This seemed to work for the services I had deployed, but when installing a new service (magnum for example) the API port 9511 is listening on the controllers but blocked externally. There doesn't seem to be a firewall or firewalld tag, is there something else I need to poke? Thanks, -Jon -- Jonathan Proulx (he/him) Sr. Technical Architect The Infrastructure Group MIT CSAIL

1 0

[Nova] Nova bug triage follow-up & volunteer roster proposal
by René Ribaud 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Hi everyone, Following our recent discussions about improving our upstream bug triage process, here’s a *Goal:* Improve bug follow-up and make sure each reported issue gets attention, while keeping the workload balanced across contributors. *Proposed process:* 1. Create a list of volunteers interested in helping with bug triage. 2. Each week, Uggla will distribute a few bugs (no more than 3 per person) to the volunteers’ group for review and follow-up. 3. During the upstream meeting, we’ll briefly check if a *dedicated session* is needed to discuss any specific bugs. 4. If needed, we’ll schedule a *Q&A session every two weeks* (or less frequently if not required). 5. If not, we’ll simply handle questions or updates directly within the upstream meeting. The dedicated session could take place right after the upstream meeting. Please add your name to the Etherpad below if you’d like to volunteer: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-bug-triage-roster Thanks everyone for your help keeping our bug list healthy and up to date! Cheers, René

2 1

[manila] No IRC meeting next week (Thu, Nov 27th 2025)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 20 Nov '25

20 Nov '25

Hello Zorillas and interested Stackers, The Manila team's weekly meeting next week (Nov 27th 2025) has been cancelled due to a lack of quorum. This could be a theme for a few weeks in the remainder of 2025 as we hit local holidays and end-of-the-year holidays observed around the world. Please follow the meeting's wiki page for updates [1]. In the meantime, feel free to chime in on OFTC's #openstack-manila. The next weekly IRC meeting will be on December 4th 2025 at 1500 UTC in #openstack-meeting-alt on OFTC. Thanks, Goutham Pacha Ravi [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila/Meetings#Next_meeting

1 0

[hacking][all] Expanding set of import exceptions
by Stephen Finucane 20 Nov '25

20 Nov '25

o/ I've been slowly adding type hints to oslo and SDK projects of late as time has allowed. One thing that I've noticed is that strict adherence to hacking's H301 (Do not import more than one module per line) and H303 (Do not use wildcard * import) rules results in both stupidly long groups of imports and overly verbose and difficult to read signatures [1]. I've therefore proposed a change to these rules that exempt some typing-related libraries - collections.abc, types, and typing - from these rules. This is proposed at [2]. As noted there, exceptions already exist for the sqlalchemy and projects' i18n modules for the same reason so this should be nothing new. I am instead bringing this up so projects currently using e.g. 'import typing as ty' imports can pivot to something sooner once this is merged. Cheers, Stephen [1] If you've already started writing a reply about how type hints *themselves* make function signatures more verbose and difficult to read, (a) is your name Sean Mooney and (b) stop right there, go enable an LSP in your editor, then come back to me in a month once you've seen the quality of life improvement hints provide. Then we'll talk 😄 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/hacking/+/967719

4 7

openstack server create fails with: Invalid PCI alias definition: Expecting property name enclosed in double quotes
by Sigurd Kristian Brinch 20 Nov '25

20 Nov '25

When I try to create a VM with: openstack server create and the flavor has a property set with "pci_passthrough:alias"="NVIDIA-H200-35C:1" The error message is: novaclient.exceptions.BadRequest: Invalid PCI alias definition: Expecting property name enclosed in double quotes: line 1 column 29 (char 28) (HTTP 400) (Request-ID: req-66fb38d8-8f49-4073-99a2-fa4677d9b48e) Anyone have any idea what is causing this? A similar command worked fine just last week. Attached is the debug output from the create command BR Sigurd

2 2

[horizon] Considering a change in how SCSS styles are handled
by Radomir Dopieralski 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '25

Hello everyone, while working on some other part of Horizon, I recently looked at the source of the pages generated, and noticed that a substantial amount of each page is the style, compiled and included on every single page using the <style> tags. That is a rather bad practice for a number of reasons, from performance to waste of bandwidth. I decided to see if that could be easily fixed, so prepared this patch that instead includes the compiled style using a <link> tag: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/horizon/+/966665 Now, I'm writing to this list for two reasons. The first is to make sure that there isn't some rule or regulation, possibly introduced before the Web was invented, that requires all OpenStack software to handle the styles in that way, and that we would be breaking if we went with my patch. The second is of a more technical nature, and pertains to the change that had to be made to the `_components.scss` file in that patch. In short, a similar change would have to be done in any Horizon plugin that adds style sheets to `HORIZON_CONFIG.scss_files`. Since we don't have control over Horizon plugins and can't possibly force such a change, and since merging my patch without such changes would break the plugins, I would like to hear from the plugin maintainers about the best way to proceed with this (or, just leaving things as they are, if that is the better option). The change becomes necessary, because the included `scss_files` can no longer be compiled in one huge block with the rest of horizon's styles, but have to be included with their own <link> tags as separate files, which means that any dependencies they rely on have to be explicitly included using the `@import` mechanism. Most of those styles at the minimum will rely on the common variables from the theme, that's why this particular import, but there may be a need for more imports added depending on what the stylesheet in question uses. I'm also open to suggestions on how to avoid the need for this change and compile everything in one big blob as we are doing now, but don't inline the style on every page. Between Django, Django-compressor, SCSS compiler and template mechanism, I don't currently see a way to do this. Thank you for your feedback, -- Radomir Dopieralski

2 1

[cinder] festival of reviews friday 2025-11-21
by Brian Rosmaita 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '25

Hello Argonauts, This is a reminder that the most recent edition of the Cinder Festival of Reviews (no longer extra-small!) will be held at the end of this week on Friday 21 November. who: Everyone! what: The Cinder Festival of Reviews when: Friday 21 November 2025 from 1400-1600 UTC where: videoconf info on the etherpad etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-festival-of-reviews This recurring meeting, that happens on the first and third Friday of each month, can be placed on your calendar by using this handy ICS file: https://meetings.opendev.org/calendars/cinder-festival-of-reviews.ics (though for some reason, the november 2025 meetings don't show up) See you there!

1 0

GPU card for multiple users
by KK CHN 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '25

List, I am having NVIDIA L40s, PCle GPU installed in one of Ubuntu Server Box, How can I make use this NVIDIA L40s card to support multiple users for running their AI work loads. How to achieve this virtualization support for the NVIDIA Card. Some body can shed some light on this regard , what are the steps need to perform to get the GPU card virtualized ? Thanks in advance, Krishane

2 2

[2023.1][kolla][rabbitmq] Failing to get packages from RabbitMQ Repos
by Rob Jefferson 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Folks, At work, we're using Kolla 2023.1, and during a recent build, I saw that the PPA that provided RabbitMQ packages gave me a "402 Payment Required" error. This seems to be an existing problem, so I decided to try using the PPA that's in the current version of 2023.1 Kolla. When I change the repo in `kolla/templates/repos.yml` so that the URL is https://ppa1.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/deb/ubuntu and the key in `docker/base/Dockerfile.j2` to be 9F4587F226208342, I get the following error: > E: The repository 'https://ppa1.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/deb/ubuntu jammy Release' does not have a Release file. If, on the other hand, I use the PPA in the official RabbitMQ docs: https://deb1.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq-erlang/ubuntu/jammy And use the key 0A9AF2115F4687BD29803A206B73A36E6026DFCA, I get the following error: > W: GPG error: https://deb1.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq-server/ubuntu/jammy jammy InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 6B73A36E6026DFCA > INFO:kolla.common.utils.rabbitmq:E: The repository 'https://deb1.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq-server/ubuntu/jammy jammy InRelease' is not signed. In both cases, I'm not sure what the issue is. I would have expected RabbitMQ server for Jammy to still be available in the first case (especially since that PPA remains in Kolla), or for the key I used in the second case to exist. Is there something I can try to fix this issue? Thanks, Rob

4 4

Updating Monitor List (rbd section) using Virsh with no downtime
by m.riudalbas＠first-colo.net 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Hello, is there a way to update a monitor list of the rbd section in a virtual machine? We need to add or modify the following entries. <source protocol='rbd' name='cinder/volume-343766ad-0086-4f8c-a557-bc60ba2210f4' index='1'> <host name='172.16.65.164' port='6789'/> <host name='172.16.65.165' port='6789'/> <host name='172.16.65.166' port='6789'/> </source> We want to replace the Monitor network and this means that we have to update every virtual machine with the new Ceph monitor IPs. The only way to replace them is with a live migration (then the live ceph configuration with the new IPs will be applied), but we would like to know if there is a faster way (because we have approximately 200-300 VMs) and some of them are so big that a live migration is impossible (only an offline migration could be done, resulting in a downtime). Another way to refresh the list is detaching the volume, but this only works for non-bootable volumes. We tried modifying the virsh XML directly (virsh edit ...) and creating a separate XML file and applying it with "virsh define newfile.xml", but the list will not be updated. Many thanks in advance!

2 1

[qa][ops] Light-weight guest image for UEFI boot and secure boot
by Takashi Kajinami 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Hi, I've been trying to implement a few tempest tests to verify functionality of UEFI boot and secure boot, and I noticed that cirros, which is used as a primary guest image for tests, do not support UEFI boot. I'm wondering if anyone can share a good light-weight guest image used in their own tests of these features ? I guess that ubuntu guest image might be a primary choice (given the fact that ubuntu is the default operating system for tests) but I'm wondering if we have more light-weight one. Thank you, Takashi -- Takashi Kajinami irc: tkajinam github: https://github.com/kajinamit launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~kajinamit

5 7

[publiccloud-sig] Public Cloud SIG meeting d.d. 19 November
by Kees Meijs | Nefos 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Hello Stackers, Tomorrow (that's 19 November) the bi-weekly Public Cloud SIG meeting will be held again. The publicly available video meeting will be conducted from 08:05 hrs UTC (09:05 hrs CET) until 08:55 hrs UTC (09:55 hrs CET) here: https://meetpad.opendev.org/publiccloud-sig Additional information to be found on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG See you tomorrow! Cheers, Kees __ Kees Meijs BICT Nefos Cloud & IT <https://nefos.com/contact> Nefos IT bv Burgemeester Mollaan 34a 5582 CK Waalre - NL kvk 66494931 +31 (0)88 2088 188 <tel:+31882088188> nefos.com <https://nefos.com/contact> The information contained in this message is intended for the addressee only and may contain classified information. If you are not the addressee, please delete this message and notify the sender; you should not copy or distribute this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual(s) and not necessarily of the organization. No reliance may be placed on this message without written confirmation from an authorised representative of its contents. No guarantee is implied that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. General terms and conditions ("The NLdigital Terms") apply to all our products and services.

1 0

[tc][tripleo] About os-net-config
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello Stackers, I am writing to seek clarity regarding recent activity on the PyPI project for os-net-config [1]. As you can tell, "OpenStack" is still listed as the author/maintainer of this package. "os-net-config" was retired early last year along with the rest of the TripleO project within OpenStack's governance [2]. It appears that development has continued outside of OpenStack with the project being forked [3]. There have been releases that were uploaded to PyPi since. A human maintainer was added to PyPi this week. There may be some rationale to continue to maintain this code. Since the project was officially retired from OpenStack, we need to ensure that any renewed activity is properly communicated; and the author/maintainers are properly attributed. For one, "OpenStack" can't be the Author/Maintainer of a project that's not officially under OpenStack Governance. There are references to the OpenStack Documentation Website, TC Badges and IRC/bug tracker links that may now be obsolete and must be removed. This could be confusing to past, current and future users of the project, not to mention the security implications and responsibility attribution on code that's used in systems worldwide. Can the current maintainers please engage with us to make the necessary changes? You can do so here, or chat on #openstack-tc on OFTC. Thanks, Goutham Pacha Ravi [1] https://pypi.org/project/os-net-config [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/905145 [3] https://github.com/os-net-config/os-net-config

4 4

[neutron][openvswitch] NAT + AFS = Sadness
by Jonathan Proulx 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

HI All, CERN may be the only other people doing anything with AFS hopefully this catches someone's eye who will just know.... The AFS filesystem use a rather "unique" connection oriented UDP protocol https://docs.kernel.org/networking/rxrpc.html This is where all our user home directories live so at's a key requirement for us. In my production cloud (mitaka sadly) we use direclty routable fixed IPs by default and all is well. In test (epoxy) we want to move away from the public v4 default IPs and lean more on floating ips for public addressing. Testing this I found impossibly poor performance for AFS behind NAT (with or without floating IP in front) on both Mitaka and Epoxy (both using openvswitch and DVR). This isn't a general NAT issue as I and others can use AFS from our homes behind comsumer NAT boxes of various sorts, and stand alone VMs out side OpenStack behind iptables based NAT are also fine. tcpdumping the connection on the fileserver sees strings of ICMP unreachable messages from the OpenStack router address (or floating ip if attahced) mid conversation. My guess is that the NAT is not maintianing stable enough port mapping becuase of the generally true assumption that UDP is stateless and will work itself out. I'm not really deeply familiar with using openvswitch for NAT as seems to be happening. Is there something I can look for in the flow rules to see what's going on? Can I tune anything to make the mappings more stable (assuming that's the issue) or am I just going to need to keep the old architecture that works? Thanks, -Jon -- Jonathan Proulx (he/him) Sr. Technical Architect The Infrastructure Group MIT CSAIL

2 4

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2026.1/R-19)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello Stackers, We're nineteen weeks away from the date of the coordinated release of OpenStack 2026.1 "Gazpacho" [1]. Last week was Milestone 1 of this release, which project teams used to track features and bug fixes; it also served as an opportunity to ship some incremental releases across various deliverables [2]. Following up from the Project Teams Gathering, the OpenStack Technical Committee is working on Special Interest Groups within the community. The goal is to identify SIGs that need help, combine efforts, and clean up cruft in our documentation. Historically, SIGs were under the combined purview of the OpenStack Technical Committee and the OpenStack User Committee. Since these governance bodies merged in 2020, it's time to achieve more while doing less. We are combining the "governance-sigs" repository with the "governance" repository, and then auditing the SIGs and updating other outdated governance information. I encourage you to view the current SIGs [3], and if you're interested in joining an active SIG, or reforming an inactive one, please do let us know via this mailing list, or by joining the #openstack-tc IRC channel on OFTC. === Weekly Meeting === The TC met over IRC on November 11th, 2025 [4]. We followed up on action items from the recent Project Team Gathering (PTG). We added tasks to our backlog to analyze the 2025 User Survey results, and to rework the FIPS Compliance goal around testing and objectives. A new action item was assigned to clarify and document the TC's policy regarding AI/LLM contributions through the Project Team Guide. We discussed the retired project, os-net-config. The project's maintainers have removed OpenStack CI and fixed the author metadata on PyPI, as was flagged in a discussion on this mailing list [5]. There was some concern that this was problematic as it could mislead users into installing non-OpenStack-governed code without knowledge that this governance change had occurred. The consensus was that while it might be too much effort to force a PyPI name change, the TC would draft a formal resolution to retroactively acknowledge the project's handover and focus efforts on locking down PyPI access for any remaining OpenStack projects to prevent similar uncoordinated takeovers. I'll keep you posted regarding this. Wrapping up, OpenDev administrators announced the successful completion of Debian Trixie mirroring in the CI, making a DevStack job available for project teams to test with. The next meeting of the OpenStack TC is today, November 18th, 2025 at 0800 UTC. It will be hosted via IRC on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel. Please find the meeting's agenda and other details in the meeting's wiki page [6]. Please note that the TC has begun hosting a monthly meeting at this new time so we can encourage participation from folks in APAC countries. I hope you'll be able to join us there. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Merge governance-sigs repository into governance | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/966644 ==== Open For Review ==== - Show SIG repositories on the SIGs page | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/967425 - [resolution] Retire governance-sigs repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/966645 - Retire Monasca project | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671 === Upcoming Events === - 2025-12-09: OpenInfra Board meeting: https://board.openinfra.org/ - 2025-12-04: 2026.1 release deadline for "cycle-trailing" projects - 2026-01-08: 2026.1 Milestone 2 Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2026.1 "Gazpacho" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/gazpacho/schedule.html [2] Milestone 1 releases: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22gazpacho-milestone-1%22 [3] OpenStack Special Interest Groups: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/sigs/ [4] TC Meeting IRC Log, Nov 11th 2025: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-11-11-17.01.html [5] os-net-config: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [6] TC Meeting Agenda, Nov 18 2025: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

[OSSA-2025-002] OpenStack Keystone: Unauthenticated access to EC2/S3 token endpoints can grant Keystone authorization (CVE PENDING)
by Jeremy Stanley 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

========================================================================= OSSA-2025-002: Unauthenticated access to EC2/S3 token endpoints can grant Keystone authorization ========================================================================= :Date: November 04, 2025 :CVE: PENDING Affects ~~~~~~~ - Keystone: <26.0.1, ==27.0.0, ==28.0.0 Description ~~~~~~~~~~~ kay reported a vulnerability in Keystone’s ec2tokens and s3tokens APIs. By sending those endpoints a valid AWS Signature (e.g., from a presigned S3 URL), an unauthenticated attacker may obtain Keystone authorization (ec2tokens can yield a fully scoped token; s3tokens can reveal scope accepted by some services), resulting in unauthorized access and privilege escalation. Deployments where /v3/ec2tokens or /v3/s3tokens are reachable by unauthenticated clients (e.g., exposed on a public API) are affected. Patches ~~~~~~~ - https://review.opendev.org/966073 (2024.2/dalmatian(keystone)) - https://review.opendev.org/966067 (2024.2/dalmatian(swift)) - https://review.opendev.org/966071 (2025.1/epoxy(keystone)) - https://review.opendev.org/966064 (2025.1/epoxy(swift)) - https://review.opendev.org/966070 (2025.2/flamingo(keystone)) - https://review.opendev.org/966063 (2025.2/flamingo(swift)) - https://review.opendev.org/966069 (2026.1/gazpacho(keystone)) - https://review.opendev.org/966062 (2026.1/gazpacho(swift)) Credits ~~~~~~~ - kay (CVE PENDING) References ~~~~~~~~~~ - https://launchpad.net/bugs/2119646 Notes ~~~~~ - While the indicated Keystone patches are sufficient to mitigate this vulnerability, corresponding changes for Swift are included which keep its optional S3-like API working. - MITRE CVE Request 1930434 has been awaiting assignment since 2025-09-24, but once completed will result in an errata revision to this advisory reflecting the correct CVE ID. If any other CNA has assigned a CVE themselves in the meantime, please reject it so that we don't end up with duplicates. -- Jeremy Stanley OpenStack Vulnerability Management Team https://security.openstack.org/vmt.html

2 2

Approaches to Making Big Changes Within Our Community
by Clark Boylan 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello everyone, There seems to be a recent sentiment within the community that the policies we've built to guide OpenStack development processes are unwieldy simply by existing. Any bureaucracy is bad by default and we should feel free to ignore it. I'd like to reject that premise and redirect some of that energy towards (what I think) is a more positive approach to making change. OpenStack has policies and procedures because it is a loose collective of many individuals and companies working towards some rough common goals. Namely the construction of a suite of software tools that interoperate to provide infrastructure as a service services. That is an incredibly broad set of goals and if we let every individual or subproject tackle this problem independently without any guidelines or constraints it would be pure chaos. Instead, over time we've built rules to help reduce the size of the problem space as we've run into fragmentation or problems that pose unnecessary overhead. For example we currently expect software to largely be written in Python, Javascript, or Go. We support Linux as the runtime platform. But we go further and list specific Linux distros that we're actually going to bother testing on. We dropped PostgreSQL support because even that was too much overhead when compared to MariaDB and MySQL. Python test tooling is currently expected to use a standard compliant test runner. Each of these examples are motivated by specific goals. Focusing on specific programming languages gives us consistency between projects so that if I need to fix a bug affecting me outside of my bubble I should have the tools to do so. Constraining programming languages also helps us build tooling around those languages to ensure that we manage packaging, security patching, translations, etc in an effective manner. Linux is a platform that largely provides all of the underlying dependencies that we need to build an infrastructure as a service system. It does so while also being compatible with our Open Source objectives. We could theoretically support OSX or Windows or FreeBSD but doing so would complicate our software and may require us to build additional tools ourselves. Constraints are good. They limit the scope of the work we have to perform which reduces overhead and hopefully produces a better result. Constraints are also important for our users and operators. Backwards compatibility is a constraint. Being able to upgrade from release X to Y is a constraint. I think the fact that we're here more than a decade after the first release with a sizeable user base is a good indicator that at least some of these constraints have been effective towards our goals. That said as time marches on our choices may no longer be in alignment with our goals and our goals may no longer be relevant. We can and should reevaluate our goals and from there reevaluate the decisions we've made. I think if we approach the process of making changes from this perspective and do so collaboratively as a community we can ensure the health of our software and community going forward. We should also probably try to be more explicit about these decisions and rely less on tribal knowledge or secret cabals. Informed developers should end up making better decisions whatever decisions are made. Finally, it probably is worth noting that this sentiment may be driven as a reaction to a community that is very resistant to change. We should be better about reevaluating our goals and decisions around those goals. Maybe this should become a regular process (either as part of the release cycle, or PTG or just annually)? The world isn't static and while some choices we made a decade ago may stand the test of time many probably do not. Let's be more open to that. Clark

3 2