There are some other issues near that commit as well. A fix for CLOUDSTACK-5502 that makes 'untagged' invalid needs to be backed out.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Yeah, this does appear to be a bug. > > I re-ran the attempted creation of my CloudStack cloud with a different > XenServer host and was left in the same state (NPE). > > I plan to try this with KVM tomorrow (er, later today, I guess). > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >> Looks like Daan added the method: >> >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java;h=a315b935495469648a0a82a25c39c9c53f0226f6;hp=11a483c3f7e420056dce7893a86946de5c40e244;hb=94abbb1367bc817bae98f369e78679f0ddb7727f;hpb=6897984970df1455fa1ee0490157758ccfb68cff >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> >>> OK, thanks! >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> git blame will show you the commit and committer. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Mike Tutkowski >>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>>> > Yeah, but I wasn't sure of the coder's intend and if your replacement >>>> code >>>> > meet their expectations, so I didn't change it. I was hoping someone >>>> would >>>> > claim the code and chime in. :) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com >>>> >wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Yeah, it would be clearer if they were checked separately: >>>> >> >>>> >> if (one == null || one.isEmpty()) { >>>> >> return true; >>>> >> } else if ( other == null || other.isEmpty()) [ >>>> >> return true; >>>> >> } >>>> >> >>>> >> or something like that. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Mike Tutkowski >>>> >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>>> >> > I should say this check doesn't have to catch it...it might, but it >>>> >> doesn't >>>> >> > have to (depends on the value of one). >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >>>> >> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> >> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> Yeah, in my case I'm just setting up a basic zone with a XenServer >>>> host. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> The code in NetUtils checks for null or "" on the variable in >>>> question >>>> >> >> that's passed in. However, in a certain case, null for that >>>> variable can >>>> >> >> slip by and lead to a NPE. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> if ((one == null || one.equals("")) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> && >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> (other == null || other.equals(""))) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> { >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> return true; >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> } >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> if other == null, this will not catch it and it can throw a NPE >>>> later. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Marcus Sorensen < >>>> shadow...@gmail.com >>>> >> >wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>> You can do "git blame (file)" and it will show you each line and >>>> the >>>> >> >>> commit. You can also do a git log on the file. The issue may not >>>> be as >>>> >> >>> obvious as that, though, there may be something totally unrelated >>>> >> causing >>>> >> >>> that object to end up null in this code. Or it may be specific to >>>> your >>>> >> >>> setup, some obscure bug nobody else is hitting. >>>> >> >>> On Jan 1, 2014 4:22 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" < >>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>> wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > This is in 4.3. >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > I know the file is NetUtils, but I'm not sure in Git how to >>>> look at >>>> >> the >>>> >> >>> > history of a particular file like I could do in SVN. >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Marcus Sorensen < >>>> shadow...@gmail.com >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > > Which branch? I see these in master, you can check out the >>>> commit >>>> >> just >>>> >> >>> > > before these and see if it helps: >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > commit b477e4e830597100f0c0171dd8e56f4033bd07aa >>>> >> >>> > > Author: Daan Hoogland <dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com> >>>> >> >>> > > Date: Tue Dec 31 12:52:51 2013 +0100 >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > some xtra cases >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > commit 2cf356e047e26977c1d294fafc57e986c04fc5f4 >>>> >> >>> > > Author: Daan Hoogland <dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com> >>>> >> >>> > > Date: Tue Dec 31 12:25:17 2013 +0100 >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > isSameIsolationId >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > commit 04570eefed9a0ee1eca1fd700ed5732ba67150ce >>>> >> >>> > > Author: Daan Hoogland <d...@onecht.net> >>>> >> >>> > > Date: Fri Dec 20 16:47:58 2013 +0100 >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > check vlans and other isolation types >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > commit d50517e931e68daef6735bd18273499fee0d4649 >>>> >> >>> > > Author: Sateesh Chodapuneedi <sate...@apache.org> >>>> >> >>> > > Date: Tue Dec 31 07:16:35 2013 +0530 >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > I also have a commit just after these, but it was pretty >>>> minor and >>>> >> >>> > > only to KVM agent code. >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Mike Tutkowski >>>> >> >>> > > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>> > > > Hey guys, >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > The NPE I saw last night was related to "isolation id." Is >>>> it >>>> >> >>> possible >>>> >> >>> > > this >>>> >> >>> > > > NPE is related to something new that was put that you are >>>> talking >>>> >> >>> about >>>> >> >>> > > > here? >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > Thank! >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > ERROR [c.c.a.ApiServer] (1583467451@qtp-185135566-2 >>>> :ctx-ae5d80b2 >>>> >> >>> > > > ctx-5c12c4d9) unhandled exception executing api command: >>>> >> >>> > > createVlanIpRange >>>> >> >>> > > > java.lang.NullPointerException >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > >>>> com.cloud.utils.net.NetUtils.isSameIsolationId(NetUtils.java:1419) >>>> >> >>> > > > at com.cloud.configuration.ConfigurationManagerImpl. >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> createVlanAndPublicIpRange(ConfigurationManagerImpl.java:2474) >>>> >> >>> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native >>>> >> Method) >>>> >> >>> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( >>>> >> >>> > > > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) >>>> >> >>> > > > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( >>>> >> >>> > > > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) >>>> >> >>> > > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) >>>> >> >>> > > > at org.springframework.aop.support.AopUtils. >>>> >> >>> > > > invokeJoinpointUsingReflection(AopUtils.java:317) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation. >>>> >> >>> > > > invokeJoinpoint(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:183) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed( >>>> >> >>> > > > ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:150) >>>> >> >>> > > > at com.cloud.event.ActionEventInterceptor.invoke( >>>> >> >>> > > > ActionEventInterceptor.java:50) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed( >>>> >> >>> > > > ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:161) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> org.springframework.aop.interceptor.ExposeInvocationInterceptor. >>>> >> >>> > > > invoke(ExposeInvocationInterceptor.java:91) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed( >>>> >> >>> > > > ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:172) >>>> >> >>> > > > at org.springframework.aop.framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy. >>>> >> >>> > > > invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.java:204) >>>> >> >>> > > > at sun.proxy.$Proxy96.createVlanAndPublicIpRange(Unknown >>>> >> Source) >>>> >> >>> > > > at org.apache.cloudstack.api.command.admin.vlan. >>>> >> >>> > > > CreateVlanIpRangeCmd.execute(CreateVlanIpRangeCmd.java:211) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> com.cloud.api.ApiDispatcher.dispatch(ApiDispatcher.java:161) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> com.cloud.api.ApiServer.queueCommand(ApiServer.java:530) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> com.cloud.api.ApiServer.handleRequest(ApiServer.java:373) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> com.cloud.api.ApiServlet.processRequestInContext(ApiServlet.java:322) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> com.cloud.api.ApiServlet.access$000(ApiServlet.java:52) >>>> >> >>> > > > at com.cloud.api.ApiServlet$1.run(ApiServlet.java:114) >>>> >> >>> > > > at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl. >>>> >> >>> > > > DefaultManagedContext$1.call(DefaultManagedContext.java:56) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > >>>> org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext. >>>> >> >>> > > > callWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:103) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> >>> > >>>> org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext. >>>> >> >>> > > > runWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:53) >>>> >> >>> > > > at >>>> >> com.cloud.api.ApiServlet.processRequest(ApiServlet.java:111) >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Marcus Sorensen < >>>> >> >>> shadow...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >>> > > wrote: >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > >> That's just it. The isolation type *is* provided when >>>> creating >>>> >> >>> > > >> physical network. If I create a physical network with >>>> isolation >>>> >> >>> type >>>> >> >>> > > >> 'VXLAN', and then add traffic type of 'Public', it doesn't >>>> obey >>>> >> it. >>>> >> >>> > > >> There's physical_networks and networks, when the zone is >>>> >> created, >>>> >> >>> an >>>> >> >>> > > >> entry goes in network that is Public/Vlan, hardcoded. The >>>> Public >>>> >> >>> > > >> traffic type uses this, regardless of what the >>>> physical_network >>>> >> its >>>> >> >>> > > >> being added to says. So if we updated the the public >>>> network >>>> >> table >>>> >> >>> row >>>> >> >>> > > >> with the correct isolation method for that physical >>>> network we >>>> >> are >>>> >> >>> > > >> adding traffic type to when we add the public traffic >>>> type, that >>>> >> >>> would >>>> >> >>> > > >> work. It's worth noting that a zone can only have one >>>> physical >>>> >> >>> network >>>> >> >>> > > >> with traffic type of public. >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>>> >> >>> > > >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Daan Hoogland < >>>> >> >>> > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > >> wrote: >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> While I've got your attention, what's the deal with >>>> isolation >>>> >> >>> > method >>>> >> >>> > > vs >>>> >> >>> > > >> broadcast method? These are always set to the same thing >>>> as far >>>> >> as >>>> >> >>> > I've >>>> >> >>> > > >> seen. >>>> >> >>> > > >> > >>>> >> >>> > > >> > I've been asking this but haven't found the answer yet. >>>> There >>>> >> is >>>> >> >>> an >>>> >> >>> > > >> > overlap but both have some extra values the other hasn't. >>>> >> >>> > > >> > >>>> >> >>> > > >> > I don't like either of your solutions but haven't got a >>>> good >>>> >> >>> > > >> > alternative. Best would be to be able to set the >>>> isolation >>>> >> type >>>> >> >>> on >>>> >> >>> > > >> > each physical network on creation. The wizard and zone >>>> >> creation >>>> >> >>> api >>>> >> >>> > > >> > command would have to be extended and allow for vlan as >>>> >> default. >>>> >> >>> > > >> > >>>> >> >>> > > >> > regards, >>>> >> >>> > > >> > >>>> >> >>> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Marcus Sorensen < >>>> >> >>> > shadow...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >>> > > >> wrote: >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> I suppose the answer might be to update the network >>>> with the >>>> >> >>> proper >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> isolation method when the traffic type is added. Look >>>> up the >>>> >> >>> > physical >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> network's isolation method, grab network object for the >>>> >> public >>>> >> >>> > > network, >>>> >> >>> > > >> and >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> set the right isolation. >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> On Jan 1, 2014 12:46 AM, "Marcus Sorensen" < >>>> >> shadow...@gmail.com >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > > wrote: >>>> >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> I ran into an issue today that I'm still trying to >>>> wrap my >>>> >> >>> head >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> around, and I wanted to bounce this off of you guys. I >>>> have >>>> >> a >>>> >> >>> > > physical >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> network whose isolation method is set to 'VXLAN' >>>> (v4.3+). I >>>> >> >>> add my >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> Public traffic type to it. I'd assume that nics >>>> generated >>>> >> for >>>> >> >>> > public >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> traffic would have the standard vxlan:// URI for >>>> isolation >>>> >> >>> URI >>>> >> >>> > and >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> broadcast URI, but they just have a vlan://. Digging >>>> into >>>> >> it, >>>> >> >>> it >>>> >> >>> > > seems >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> that public traffic is hard-coded to >>>> >> BroadcastDomainType.Vlan. >>>> >> >>> I >>>> >> >>> > > fixed >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> this fairly easily for my testing, there were only a >>>> few >>>> >> >>> places to >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> fix, by pulling the BroadcastDomainType from the >>>> network >>>> >> object >>>> >> >>> > > rather >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> than hardcoding it, but that found another problem. >>>> This >>>> >> only >>>> >> >>> > works >>>> >> >>> > > if >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> I change the broadcast type in the 'networks' mysql >>>> table by >>>> >> >>> hand, >>>> >> >>> > > as >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> during zone deployment the public network creation is >>>> also >>>> >> >>> > > hard-coded >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> to vlan. >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> I'm not sure how to go about fixing this, since the >>>> >> Public, >>>> >> >>> > > Control, >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> Management networks are created upon zone deployment, >>>> (see >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> createDefaultSystemNetworks). The immediate thing that >>>> >> jumped >>>> >> >>> out >>>> >> >>> > > was >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> a config variable for public isolation method, set >>>> prior to >>>> >> >>> zone >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> deployment, or perhaps even one that overrides what's >>>> in the >>>> >> >>> > table. >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> While I've got your attention, what's the deal with >>>> >> isolation >>>> >> >>> > > method >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> vs broadcast method? These are always set to the same >>>> thing >>>> >> as >>>> >> >>> far >>>> >> >>> > > as >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> I've seen. >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > > >> >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > >>>> >> >>> > > > -- >>>> >> >>> > > > *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> >> >>> > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> >> >>> > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> >>> > > > o: 303.746.7302 >>>> >> >>> > > > Advancing the way the world uses the >>>> >> >>> > > > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>>> >> >>> > > > *™* >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > -- >>>> >> >>> > *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> >> >>> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> >> >>> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> >>> > o: 303.746.7302 >>>> >> >>> > Advancing the way the world uses the >>>> >> >>> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>>> >> >>> > *™* >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -- >>>> >> >> *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> >> >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> >> >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> >> o: 303.746.7302 >>>> >> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud< >>>> >> http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>>> >> >> *™* >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > -- >>>> >> > *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> >> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> >> > o: 303.746.7302 >>>> >> > Advancing the way the world uses the >>>> >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>>> >> > *™* >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> > o: 303.746.7302 >>>> > Advancing the way the world uses the >>>> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>>> > *™* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mike Tutkowski* >>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>> o: 303.746.7302 >>> Advancing the way the world uses the >>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >>> *™* >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Tutkowski* >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> o: 303.746.7302 >> Advancing the way the world uses the >> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> *™* >> > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > *™*
