Open Stack

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin <ftersin at cloudscaling.com>
wrote:

> nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy
> this case is valid, right?
> I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified,
> but the second one is created at network mapping stage.
> If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port
> (if not - default group will):
> nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1
> Thus a port and a security group can be specified together.
>

The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's
security groups updated or not?
Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups
for it?
If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for:
nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1
where the intention is clear enough?


>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400
>>> Oleg Bondarev <obondarev at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction
>>>>> with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group
>>>>> assignment in Neutron as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a
>>>> vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id)
>>>> and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that
>>>> instance will become a member of the specified groups.
>>>> Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is
>>>> now) seems completely unfair to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups
>>> is supplied.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>> Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial
>> attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you
>> specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the
>> compute API added the 'default' security group to the request').
>>
>> The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so
>> if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a
>> 400 error response.
>>
>> Does this break API compatibility?  It seems this falls under the first
>> bullet here [2], "A change such that a request which was successful before
>> now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously
>> was hiding an existing error condition)".  Does that caveat in parenthesis
>> make this OK?
>>
>> It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API
>> for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected
>> result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility
>> concerns so I'm hesitant on this.
>>
>> We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into.  I
>> think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test.
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/
>> [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines#
>> Generally_Not_Acceptable
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt Riedemann
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:
>> unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150210/6a19a1ca/attachment.html>