hey guys, have been sick in bed all day, sorry to react slowly. I saw your explanation Marcus and I should check for the case that only one of the two is null and return false. I will update and if you haven't already I will put in a fix.
regards, Daan On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> >> *™*
