> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/527658 is a z/VM patch which
> introduces their support for config drive. They do this by attaching a
> tarball to the instance, having pretended in the nova code that it is
> an iso9660. This worries me.
> In the past we've been concerned about adding new filesystem formats
> for config drives, and the long term support implications of that --
> the filesystem formats for config drive that we use today were
> carefully selected as being universally supported by our guest
> operating systems.
> The previous example we've had of these issues is the parallels
> driver, which had similar "my hypervisor doesn't support these
> filesystem format" concerns. We worked around those concerns IIRC, and
> certainly virt.configdrive still only supports iso9660 and vfat.

Yeah, IIRC, the difference with the parallels driver was that it ends up
mounted in the container automagically for the guest by the..uh..man
behind the curtain. However, z/VM being much more VM-y I imagine that
the guest is just expected to grab that blob and do something with it to
extract it on local disk at runtime or something. That concerns me too.

In the past I've likened adding filesystem (or format, in this case)
options to configdrive as a guest ABI change. I think the stability of
what we present to guests is second only to our external API in terms of
importance. I know z/VM is "weird" or "different", but I wouldn't want a
more conventional hypervisor exposing the configdrive as a tarball, so I
don't really think it's a precedent we should set. Both vfat and iso9660
are easily supportable by most everything on the planet so I don't think
it's an unreasonable bar.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to