Here is the nova patch for those following along:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/572790/
On 6/6/2018 9:07 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2018 10:02 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/6/2018 8:24 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2018 09:10 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
I think regardless of how we
On 06/06/2018 10:02 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/6/2018 8:24 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2018 09:10 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
I think regardless of how we ended up with this situation, we're still
in a position where we have a public-facing API that could lead to
data-corruption when used
On 6 June 2018 at 13:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/06/2018 07:46 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR I think we need to entirely disable swap volume for multiattach
>> volumes, and this will be an api breaking change with no immediate
>> workaround.
>>
>> I was looking through tempest and came
On 6/6/2018 8:24 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2018 09:10 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
I think regardless of how we ended up with this situation, we're still
in a position where we have a public-facing API that could lead to
data-corruption when used in a specific way. That should never be the
On 06/06/2018 09:10 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
I think regardless of how we ended up with this situation, we're still
in a position where we have a public-facing API that could lead to
data-corruption when used in a specific way. That should never be the
case. I would think re-using the already
On 6/6/2018 7:55 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I'd love to know who is actually using the swap_volume() functionality,
actually. I'd especially like to know who is using swap_volume() with
multiattach.
The swap volume API in nova only exists as a callback routine during
volume live migration or
I think regardless of how we ended up with this situation, we're still
in a position where we have a public-facing API that could lead to
data-corruption when used in a specific way. That should never be the
case. I would think re-using the already possible 400 response code to
update-volume when
On 06/06/2018 07:46 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
TL;DR I think we need to entirely disable swap volume for multiattach
volumes, and this will be an api breaking change with no immediate
workaround.
I was looking through tempest and came across
TL;DR I think we need to entirely disable swap volume for multiattach
volumes, and this will be an api breaking change with no immediate
workaround.
I was looking through tempest and came across
api.compute.admin.test_volume_swap.TestMultiAttachVolumeSwap.test_volume_swap_with_multiattach.
This
