- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[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

[Neutron] Bug Deputy Report Nov 10- Nov 16
by Miro Tomaska 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello All, Here is Neutron bug deputy report for November 10 through 16 *High:* https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2131024 - [CI] test_add_manager related failures Rodolfo Alonso already proposed a fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2131540 - OVN agent is not gracefully shutting down Assigned: Rodolfo Alonso *Opinion:* https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2131087 Discuss with the team if port fixed-ip updates should preserve previous fixed-ips *RFE proposal:* https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2131072 Neutron should publish access usage for neutron resources. Similar to Cinder volume_usage_audit *Undecided:* https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2130972 - Show response body on GET enforcement request Undecided but there is already a good discussion with contributors *Incomplete*: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2131290 Looks like there is an issue connecting to OVN services... waiting for more info -- Miro Tomaska Senior Software Engineer

1 0

[watcher] Deprecate Prometheus datasource
by Joan Gilabert 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello everyone, As discussed during the 2026.1 PTG[1], it was decided to deprecate the prometheus datasource[2] during this cycle, in favor of the aetos datasource[3]. The aetos datasource provides the same functionality as the prometheus one, but with the advantage of multi-tenancy and Kestone-based authentication. Let us know if there are any objections. A patch to deprecate the prometheus datasource is proposed[4]. [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.1-ptg#L207 [2] https://docs.openstack.org/watcher/latest/datasources/prometheus.html [3] https://docs.openstack.org/watcher/latest/datasources/aetos.html [4] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/watcher/+/966672 Regards, Joan Francesc

2 1

[magnum][all] Magnum PTG summary
by Dale Smith 16 Nov '25

16 Nov '25

Hi everyone, thanks to those who joined the Magnum PTG on 28th October. It was held early in the morning for EU, and evening for AU/NZ. Apologies to those who were less likely to make it due to the time slot; please reach out if you'd have liked to join but couldn't and we'll take that into account for the next. Attendees: 9 (6 UK/EU, 3 AU/NZ) Etherpad: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/oct2025-ptg-magnum The floor was open to discussion topics from the etherpad, and topics were discussed in the order presented. We discussed the current state of drivers, and migration from Heat to CAPI: None planned, rebuild your clusters once CAPI is running. Cluster upgrades after that are easy. Installation of the base Kubernetes system to support CAPI drivers was a topic of interest as Magnum with CAPI drivers is now dependant on having a running Kubernetes cluster and not OpenStack Heat. This is left to deployers, but improved documentation of options and deployers would be helpful. Magnum documentation on docs.openstack.org was brought up and agreed to be in a poor state with out of date and very old references. The consensus was we should **remove** the existing documentation and rewrite it without references to Heat driver (which is deprecated and slated for removal; making this decision easier in G). Older documentation for old releases would still be available on docs.openstack.org. As with the past few cycles, the CI system needing to cover CAPI was raised. mnasiadka is planning to work on this in the G cycle. Eventlet removal patches have been created last cycle, and the core team agrees to push forward with reviewing and merging these early in the cycle so any problems can be found. and finally, discussion on a longer term feature proposals around labels[1][2] was continued with specs linked (which are noted as needing an update to current thinking). The current state of labels in Magnum is in need of an update to support more features of Cluster API; allow end users to modify these labels for a running cluster, discover valid labels, and provide a more structured format for defining these per ClusterTemplate, Cluster and NodeGroup. References: [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/magnum-specs/+/943358 Propose label normalisation spec. [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/magnum-specs/+/955549 Add spec for api-validation-with-driver -- DALE SMITH Cloud Engineer Catalyst Cloud <https://catalystcloud.nz> Aotearoa New Zealand's cloud provider e dale(a)catalystcloud.nz w catalystcloud.nz <https://catalystcloud.nz> Follow us on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/catalyst-cloud-limited/> Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis St, Wellington 6011 Confidentiality Notice: This email is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged, confidential or copyright information. If you are not the named recipient, any use, reliance upon, disclosure or copying of this email or its attachments is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please reply via email or call +64 4 499 2267 <tel:+6444992267>.

1 0

Neutron OVN migration
by Gk Gk 16 Nov '25

16 Nov '25

Hi Folks, I thought of sharing the below post detailing my learnings during the neutron plugin migration from LXB to OVN. Please check this out if anyone is interested. https://medium.com/@ygk.kmr/openstack-neutron-migration-from-linux-bridge-t… Thoughts, comments, opinions are welcome including criticism.. Thanks Kumar

2 2

[release] Release countdown for week R-19
by Thierry Carrez 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Development Focus ----------------- We are now past the gazpacho-1 milestone. Teams should now be focused on feature development and completion of goals [0]. [0] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/index.html General Information ------------------- Our next milestone in this development cycle will be gazpacho-2, on January 8, 2026. This milestone is when we freeze the list of deliverables that will be included in the 2026.1 "Gazpacho" final release, so if you plan to introduce new deliverables in this release, please propose a change to add an empty deliverable file in the deliverables/gazpacho directory of the openstack/releases repository. Now is also generally a good time to look at bugfixes that were introduced in the master branch that might make sense to be backported and released in a stable release. If you have any question around the OpenStack release process, feel free to ask on this mailing-list or on the #openstack-release channel on IRC. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- gazpacho-2 Milestone: January 8, 2026 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

[Kolla] Transition Antelope (2023.1) to End of Life
by Bartosz Bezak 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Hello, The Kolla Antelope (2023.1) deliverables - Kolla, Kolla-Ansible, Kayobe and Ansible-Collection-Kolla - are being moved to end-of-life (EOL) status. [1] Antelope has been in the unmaintained state for some time, and the Kolla community does not have the resources to support it further. There are no active changes for Kolla project deliverables in the Antelope branches. [2] In line with other OpenStack projects, Caracal (2024.1) will also be marked as unmaintained soon. Dalmatian (2024.2) and Epoxy (2025.1) are currently our supported stable releases. Flamingo (2025.2) is expected to be released in the coming weeks. [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/967217 [2] https://review.opendev.org/q/project:%22%5Eopenstack/(ansible-collection-ko… Best regards, Bartosz Bezak

1 0

Opensearch Service Update
by Daniel Pawlik 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Hello, We would like to notify you that the Opensearch service [1] would be updated to a newer version on 13 November 2025 at 12:00 PM UTC. This procedure might take a while, depending on the cluster size. During that time, the Opensearch service would not be available. If anyone has any doubts, please reply to the email. Dan [1] - https://opensearch.logs.openstack.org/_dashboards/app/home

2 2

[neutron] Drivers meeting canceled Friday, November 14th
by Brian Haley 13 Nov '25

13 Nov '25

Hello Neutrinos: I am going to cancel tomorrow's Drivers meeting as I will be out. Just a reminder that our open spec list at [0]. Have a nice weekend! -Brian [0] https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-specs

1 0

[OpenStack Ansible] [Deployment] Networking design issue
by holywine＠outlook.com 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

Hello, [Following up a previous unfinished case/task with an enhanced network] I am trying to build a minimum usable production-level cloud with OpenStack Ansible following online reference. (https://docs.openstack.org/project-deploy-guide/openstack-ansible/2025.1/) openstack-ansible version: stable/2025.1 4 servers as target hosts, all with Ubuntu 24.04LTS. Each server has two Ethernet ports enp11s0f0, enp11s0f1. All servers’ enp11s0f1 ports has a fixed public IP (10.2.46.XX/24) and has access to Internet. All servers’ enp11s0f0 ports are intended to be used for OpenStack traffic. They are assigned IP range in 172.29.XX.XX for internal use. The idea of design: 1) Infra1: Controller 1 + networking 1 2) Infra2: Controller 2 + networking 2 3) Compute 1: Compute 1 + networking 3 + storage 1 4) Compute 2: Compute 2 + networking 4 + storage 2 Reference: The network topology and the deployment configuration (including user_variables.yml and openstack_user_config.yml) for a trial run can be found: https://github.com/holywi/git-tutorial/tree/master While, with this setting the deployment always failed by reporting errors seems to be related to HAproxy. I am wondering it is related to network design and services assignment. It would be grateful if anyone can provide some comments, suggestions or some common practices for the similar case. Some questions have popped up in my mind: 1) Does it make sense to make each host to access Internet on its own? It seems possible since each server has dedicated port and Openstack can support local routers? If not, how can these servers access Internet? 2) Is it good to make all 4 hosts the HAproxy server? 3) If using an FQDN for internal_lb_vip_address (it seems to be the case in the reference config) where the DNS server is located and how to make it happen? I don't see any setting which is related to DNS and DHCP which seems to be useful as well. Highly appreciate for any feedback as a new comer for Openstack.

1 0

OpenStack Student Engagement, University Partnerships, & Mentors
by Kendall Nelson 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

Hello Everyone, You might have noticed a non zero number of my emails to the mailing list have to do with the University Partnership Program <https://openinfra.org/university-partnership-program/> and engaging with universities to get students involved in OpenStack (and generally open source). Usually these emails are per university/opportunity which is rather inefficient and all too often I end up being a bottleneck in the process. At the PTG, during one of the Technical Committee sessions I shared an etherpad <https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/UPP-Projects%26Mentors> that I am hoping to utilize to smooth the whole process. The intent is to collect possible projects up front that I can share with professors as they reach out to me. I take responsibility for regularly auditing the project list so it doesn't become stale. Potentially this collection + audit could be a PTG session at future PTGs, but that doesn't have to be decided now. You will notice in the etherpad, that I also have a place for just collecting folks interested in being mentors. If you don't currently have an idea for a project, but are interested in mentoring, please add your name to that section. This list will also get regularly refreshed, but I am thinking on a yearly basis instead of twice a year - that said, nothing is stopping you from adding or removing your name in between those audits. I am 100% open to feedback on this, but it will hopefully allow more folks interested in participating in the University Partnership program and help smooth out the process for involvement. If you want to get involved either as a mentor or with a specific project proposal for students, please add to the etherpad ASAP <https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/UPP-Projects%26Mentors>! I expect a round of professors reaching out in the next month for students starting their terms in early January (usually running through late May). Please let me know if you have any other questions I might have missed. And thank you to everyone that made it through this lengthy email :) -Kendall

1 0

[all][keystone] Keystone PTG summary
by Artem Goncharov 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

Hey guys Let us give you an update of the OpenStack Keystone future following the great PTG week we just had. Some news has already spread across the community, causing excitement and anxiety. It is not uncommon that changes cause fear. Some time ago, in the age of the Inquisition, people were even burned because of fear, misunderstanding, or questioning the rules. Let us clarify things. Nearly 13 years ago, the Identity v3 API was introduced. Since then, the world has changed dramatically. Libraries we use got abandoned, standards went legacy and replaced with new ones, ecosystem components, certain functionality is based upon are being sunsetted by OS vendors (mod_auth_mellon is archived upstream and gone in CentOS and RHEL [6]), new security vulnerabilities (classes of vulnerabilities) appear like mushrooms without us being able to address them. Cloud providers today face new challenges that were not present 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, a public cloud requires proper federation support with complete self-service. Users request passkey support, and security departments require additional hardening. These things cannot be covered in today's Keystone architecture and API version. As a result, work on an optional extension to Keystone [1] began some time ago, allowing CSPs to deploy it in parallel with the Python Keystone (of any v3 version) and access the new features. To simplify parallel deployment, it has been decided to start introducing v4 with the new features (since those ARE for cloud end-users). The work was done in Rust due to multiple factors: lack of necessary python libraries with trustable maintenance and/or licensing, necessity for enforcing security standards and practices using memory safe programming language, demand to address python ecosystem madness of past years (I guess majority would agree, that in the past few years we were mostly only chasing the python ecosystem breaking us on setuptools, eventlet, passlib, …). During the work, it became clear that implementing the mentioned features requires support of a given percentage of the existing functionality: users, groups, projects, roles, and tokens. And so it was implemented. A side effect of it became immediately visible: performance. Token check is THE most frequently called API in the OpenStack cloud. Right now, caching is used to reduce system stress. But in Rust, token decryption, without caching, is much faster than in python with caching (we expect a 2-3x faster order of magnitude). As mentioned above, new vulnerability classes and attack vectors require us to disable caching, making such an improvement highly valuable. The new stack is fully async, uses parallel DB queries, and runs background tasks for periodic cleanups, synchronization, and similar. This allows us to achieve significant performance and maintainability improvements, eliminate the old ballast, and significantly reduce transitive dependency version conflicts. Current measurements also indicate that we would likely be able to eliminate the need for caching in Keystone. For python, on the other hand, we do not have much to start with and would need to find and migrate to the new web framework, find maintained libraries with suitable licenses, and implement new features. We also need to rework the DB access patterns due to the number of bugs and the performance penalty caused by suboptimal DB access (many rows are selected multiple times during processing of a single request). With new authentication flows, we would need to do a wide security assessment of Keystone from scratch anyway. With that work in mind and facing the prospect of having a major rework in python Keystone anyway (due to the abandoned complex dependencies), we, as the Keystone team, decided to try to focus the work on the Rust implementation, making it a proper evolution of the python Keystone and building a necessary community around it. This adoption is conditional on adding new contributors to support the project. We believe this approach allows the best of both worlds: the trusted maturity of Keystone’s Python code-base, combined with the modern, high-safety, high-performance capabilities of Rust where they matter most. Logically, this raises questions, so let's try to answer some of them: 1. Rust is not officially allowed in OpenStack. How are you dealing with that - The development is now going on on GitHub outside of OpenStack governance. - We would apply for OpenStack universe inclusion. - Once the TC policy allows Rust or the overall project inclusion requirement is reworked, the project will work toward becoming the official OpenStack project. - No one in the team is willing to separate from OpenStack, but with the current policies, we have no other way. Everybody and everything in the OpenStack ecosystem would benefit from that project being official to have first-class native support of the new functionality. - Multiple CSPs expressed support for such a move, desiring to see Rust in the ecosystem for better performance, maintainability, and resource utilization - A nice coincidence is a freshly sent announcement from Debian that introduces a strong rust dependency in the packaging tooling, stating something similar to: either you work to comply with this requirement in the next 6 months or sunset the port [5]. - Rust allows cross-integration with python with a high number of cryptography and typing libraries for python written directly in Rust. We are going to be able to reuse certain pieces of python in Rust during porting and Rust in python later in the future. - Keystone is a very sensitive component and in our eyes that fully justifies use of rust to provide a much stronger security on the language level. 2. Do you deprecate python Keystone. - No - v3 is there, and we continue maintaining it - We would unlikely accept major changes - Keystonemiddleware, keystoneauth, etc, are still there. They would likely be adopted for v4 support at some point in the future (in OpenStack services, we already communicate with “external” software, so there should be no problem). Those libraries are crucial for other services and thus are there to stay while necessary. - At some point, we will no longer be able to keep it alive when abandoned dependencies are physically gone. We are not going to invest our time in maintaining the abandoned software; we do not have enough time to do so. 3. What is the community around it? - As of now, there are provisional commitments from a few vendors and CSPs to collaborate on it. - Existing software is being transferred under the openstack-experimental organization to help build the community [3]. -The initial author (gtema) personally commits to continue working on that independently of others. 4. What are the /v3 features that would go away? - OIDC federation in its current form. v4 reimplements it from scratch natively without depending on external software (mod_auth_oidc, etc) since those make self-service impossible. - Saml2, this is a legacy protocol that is very unlikely to even get fixes for security vulnerabilities, and looks to be PQC unsafe. - Oauth1. 5. What new features are there in v4? - OIDC with self-service and CLI integration - Workload federation (Zuul, GitHub, Gitlab do not need to have secrets to access OpenStack anymore) - Service accounts (many use cases, one of the prominent ones: OpenStack on Kubernetes, GitHub workflow) - Passkeys (webauthn) - SCIM - Tight Open Policy Agent integration. We plan to consider the reintroduction of central policy storage in Keystone (not enforcing, but for central storage)[4] We will use the next 2-3 months to gather interest in contributing to this approach and the new Rust-based code. There was a lot of interest in the new features listed right above during gtema’s sessions in OpenInfra Summit in October 2025. Still, it has to translate into active contributors for this effort to take off. If you have an interest in those new features, join us! We hope this clarifies the situation. Feel free to reach out with other questions. Thanks to everybody who participated in the discussions. Regards, Keystone team [1] https://github.com/gtema/keystone [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOHYqE2HRw4&list=PLKqaoAnDyfgr91wN_12nwY321… [3] https://github.com/openstack-experimental/keystone [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B4Zsd8RG88&list=PLKqaoAnDyfgr91wN_12nwY321… [5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/10/msg00285.html [6] https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2743391

10 20

[oslo][all] Proposing oslo.wsgi
by Stephen Finucane 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

o/ I'd like to propose the creation of a new "oslo.wsgi" project that service projects should adopt, where it makes sense to. My reasons for this proposal are three-fold: * As we've been working on the OpenAPI work for various services, we've found ourselves copy-pasting a lot of the code between these services. This has occasionally led to issues when those copies are incomplete [1][2]. Historically speaking, copy-pasting of code between services is a sure sign that this code should be generalised and placed in an oslo library * I have previously noted [3] that oslo.service contains some non- eventlet-related WSGI routing code, and there are questions around whether (a) that code should have been placed there in the first place and (b) how we can maintain that long-term once the eventlet code is removed (the 'oslo_service.wsgi' module has side effects since it imports the backend configuration stuff). * I have also raised some concerns around our use of paste.deploy and routes [1], both of which are minimally maintained nowadays. Many oslo libraries are designed to abstract their underlying libraries, allowing users to switch between e.g. different messaging backends (oslo.messaging) or caching services (oslo.cache). Taken together, I think now would be a good time to provide a new library. I have an initial prototype available [4] which is effectively just a refactoring of the code from oslo.service, but I expect to add both more functionality to this existing code from existing consumers (Nova, Manila, Cinder etc.) and to add the openapi validation machinery. I imagine longer-term, this should evolve to allow us to replace the underlying libraries. However, we should obviously not get into the business of writing our own web framework. I also don't think it would make sense for all services to adopt all aspects of this project, since not all projects have any OpenAPI efforts ongoing at the moment and not all of them use the pastedeploy-routes-webob combo. Given the above rationale and caveats, what do people think? Are there any objections to this idea? Please let me know. If there is not, I will go figure out how to get the ball rolling on this. Cheers, Stephen PS: Why oslo.wsgi instead of a more generic name like debtcollector or futurist? I don't think this library will be useful outside of OpenStack, so the oslo prefix makes sense. [1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/963938 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/960291 [3] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [4] https://github.com/stephenfin/oslo.wsgi

8 13

[watcher] 2nd call for maintainers - MAAS integration
by Douglas Viroel 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

Hi all, The Watcher team had a session[1] during the last PTG about the impacts of service integrations that have lacked maintainers, documentation, and/or testing coverage in CI. The MAAS (Metal As A Service) integration still lacks maintainers and is impacting the eventlet removal effort within Watcher, since it contains eventlet-dependent code that requires maintenance and validation. In the 2025.2 development cycle, we had a first call for maintainers[2] and we didn't receive any feedback. This is a second call for maintainers interested in supporting MAAS in Watcher, to help fill these gaps (eventlet removal, CI testing, documentation). The Watcher team plans to *deprecate* this integration during the 2026.1 cycle if we don't find anyone to assist in maintaining it. [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/watcher-2026.1-ptg#L177 [2] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… Thanks and regards, -- Douglas Viroel - dviroel

2 1

[Kolla-Ansible][Tacker] [VIM]Unable to find key file for VIM
by josem.arco＠uah.es 12 Nov '25

12 Nov '25

Hi All, I have installed an bare-metal server Ubuntu 24.04 with Kolla-Ansible and all-in-one with Tacker. When I register the OpenStack Vim with the CLI I have this error “Unable to find key file for VIM e255b2e2…”. I have tried with the two optios of the 'cert_verify' parameter but it doesn’t work. I have also tried to do it with Horizon and it says “Error: Failed to register VIM. Details The request you have made requires authentication.” I have followed the lastest web pages of Kolla and Tacker. Thanks in advance for your help. Jose

1 0