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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List" <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
