I think we should leave LVM out for now -- I am not sure it makes
sense to put a tens of megabyte file into its own LV. I'll fix the
cleanup thing today.

Michael

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Solly Ross <sr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Overall, this looks good.
>
> Your alternate implementation misses LVM support, and leaves an unused file 
> behind in the instance directory.  Other than that, it's acceptable for a 
> late-stage change, IMO.
>
> Best Regards,
> Solly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Still" <mi...@stillhq.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:07:58 AM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] Reverting recent refactorings of RBD support for    
>>  config drives
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Today I encountered bug 1369627 [1] as I trolled the status of release
>> critical bugs, which appears to be fall out from the decision to
>> implement adding support for config drives stored in RBD. While I have
>> no problem with that being at thing we do, I'm concerned by the way it
>> was implemented -- the image caching code for libvirt was being used
>> to "cache" the config drive, and then upload it to ceph as a side
>> effect of the image caching mechanism.
>>
>> I'd prefer we don't to it that way, and given its introduced as
>> security bug, I have proposed the following reverts:
>>
>>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123070/
>>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123071/
>>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123072/
>>
>> Now, because I want to move us forward, I've also proposed an
>> alternate implementation which achieves the same thing without using
>> the caching code:
>>
>>  - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/123073/
>>
>> The new implementation only supports RBD, but that's mostly because
>> its the only image storage backend in the libvirt driver where it
>> makes immediate sense to do this sort of thing. I think this code
>> could do with a refactor, but I was attempting to produce the minimum
>> functional implementation given where we are in the release cycle.
>>
>> Persuant to our revert policy [2], I am asking cores to take a look at
>> these patches as soon as possible.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> 1: https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1369627
>> 2:
>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/doc/source/devref/policies.rst
>>
>> --
>> Rackspace Australia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Rackspace Australia

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to