On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau <ges...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that >>> are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider the >>> name to be just a tag that the user places on some resource. It is the >>> resource's ID that is unique. >>> >>> I do realize that Nova takes a different approach to *some* resources, >>> including the security group name. >>> >>> End of the day, it's probably just a personal preference whether names >>> should be unique to a tenant/user or not. >>> >>> Maru had asked me my opinion on whether names should be unique and I >>> answered my personal opinion that no, they should not be, and if Neutron >>> needed to ensure that there was one and only one default security group for >>> a tenant, that a way to accomplish such a thing in a race-free way, without >>> use of SELECT FOR UPDATE, was to use the approach I put into the pastebin on >>> the review above. >>> >> >> I agree with Jay. We should not care about how a user names the resource. >> There other ways to prevent this race and Jay’s suggestion is a good one. > > However we should open a bug against Horizon because the user experience there > is terrible with duplicate security group names.
The reason security group names are unique is that the ec2 api supports source rule specifications by tenant_id (user_id in amazon) and name, so not enforcing uniqueness means that invocation in the ec2 api will either fail or be non-deterministic in some way. Vish
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
