Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
You could rise an exception if ports are specified for all nics. [1] I'm not sure that logging of this case is helpful, because only admins can access to logs. Probably the better way to warn a user is to do it at client side by nova cli (i.e. no any modification of nova server is needed). [1] It returns us back to the original Matt's question. I suppose that most people, which tried to specify security groups with ports, already found that it doesn't do work properly. And now they don't use them together. Other part, which didn't found this, have the error in their scripts (because they start instances with no expected groups). So rising an error in this case could be useful. In my turn, i used these parameters together ( https://github.com/stackforge/ec2-api/blob/master/ec2api/api/instance.py#L770) to do a workaround of a strange bug ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1384347), which is not actual since Juno. I believe OpenStack could not support compatibility for such workarounds. Finlally, the only my concern is the case with two nics, mentioned at the beginning. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: I definitely don't expect any change of the existing port in the case with two nics. However in the case of single nic a question like 'what is impact of security-groups parameter' arises. Also a similar question arises out of '--nic port-id=xxx,v4-fixed-ip=yyy' combination. Moreover, if we assume that, for example, security-groups parameter affects the specified port, the next question is 'what is the result group set'. Does it replace groups of the port, or just update them? Thus i agree with you, that this part of nova API is not clear now. But the case with two nics make sense, works now, and can be used by someone. Do you really want to break it? I don't want to break anything :) I guess the only option then is to just log a warning that security groups are ignored in case port_id is provided on boot - but this still leaves a chance of broken user expectations. On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's security groups updated or not? Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups for it? If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1 where the intention is clear enough? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
I definitely don't expect any change of the existing port in the case with two nics. However in the case of single nic a question like 'what is impact of security-groups parameter' arises. Also a similar question arises out of '--nic port-id=xxx,v4-fixed-ip=yyy' combination. Moreover, if we assume that, for example, security-groups parameter affects the specified port, the next question is 'what is the result group set'. Does it replace groups of the port, or just update them? Thus i agree with you, that this part of nova API is not clear now. But the case with two nics make sense, works now, and can be used by someone. Do you really want to break it? On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's security groups updated or not? Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups for it? If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1 where the intention is clear enough? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: I definitely don't expect any change of the existing port in the case with two nics. However in the case of single nic a question like 'what is impact of security-groups parameter' arises. Also a similar question arises out of '--nic port-id=xxx,v4-fixed-ip=yyy' combination. Moreover, if we assume that, for example, security-groups parameter affects the specified port, the next question is 'what is the result group set'. Does it replace groups of the port, or just update them? Thus i agree with you, that this part of nova API is not clear now. But the case with two nics make sense, works now, and can be used by someone. Do you really want to break it? I don't want to break anything :) I guess the only option then is to just log a warning that security groups are ignored in case port_id is provided on boot - but this still leaves a chance of broken user expectations. On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's security groups updated or not? Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups for it? If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1 where the intention is clear enough? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines#Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Feodor Tersin fter...@cloudscaling.com wrote: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. The question here is what do you expect for the existing port - it's security groups updated or not? Will it be ok to silently (or with warning in logs) ignore security groups for it? If it's ok then is it ok to do the same for: nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --security-groups sg-1 where the intention is clear enough? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy this case is valid, right? I.e. i want to boot instance with two ports. The first port is specified, but the second one is created at network mapping stage. If i specify a security group as well, it will be used for the second port (if not - default group will): nova boot ... --nic port-id=xxx --nic net-id=yyy --security-groups sg-1 Thus a port and a security group can be specified together. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Coming back to this, we now have a change from Oleg [1] after an initial attempt that was reverted because it would break server creates if you specified a port (because the original change would blow up when the compute API added the 'default' security group to the request'). The new change doesn't add the 'default' security group to the request so if you specify a security group and port on the request, you'll now get a 400 error response. Does this break API compatibility? It seems this falls under the first bullet here [2], A change such that a request which was successful before now results in an error response (unless the success reported previously was hiding an existing error condition). Does that caveat in parenthesis make this OK? It seems like we've had a lot of talk about warts in the compute v2 API for cases where an operation is successful but didn't yield the expected result, but we can't change them because of API backwards compatibility concerns so I'm hesitant on this. We also definitely need a Tempest test here, which I'm looking into. I think I can work this into the test_network_basic_ops scenario test. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154068/ [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines# Generally_Not_Acceptable -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. The trouble I see with supporting this way of assigning security groups is what should the correct behavior be if the user passes more than one port into the Nova boot command ? In the case where Nova is creating the ports it kind of feels (just) Ok to assign the security groups to all the ports. In the case where the ports have already been created then it doesn’t feel right to me that Nova modifies them. An option may be to append existing ports' security groups with ones that a user specifies during instance boot. This way we will preserve both user expectations - first when the port is created and second when the instance is spawned. Thoughts? *From:* Oleg Bondarev [mailto:obonda...@mirantis.com] *Sent:* 25 September 2014 08:19 *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot. Hi Parikshit, Looks like a bug. Currently if port is specified its security groups are not updated, it shpould be fixed. I've reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1373774 to track this. Thanks for reporting! Thanks, Oleg On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Parikshit Manur parikshit.ma...@citrix.com wrote: Hi All, Creation of server with command ‘nova boot --image image --flavor m1.medium --nic port-id=port-id --security-groups sec_grp name’ fails to attach the security group to the port/instance. The response payload has the security group added but only default security group is attached to the instance. Separate action has to be performed on the instance to add sec_grp, and it is successful. Supplying the same with ‘--nic net-id=net-id’ works as expected. Is this the expected behaviour / are there any other options which needs to be specified to add the security group when port-id needs to be attached during boot. Thanks, Parikshit Manur ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. FWIW this is what has been implemented in Heat when such request is made (see discussion on the bug report and [1]) Simon [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/heat/commit/?id=5c5e36de3737a85bec5023c94265e6bbaf6ad78e Chris ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
On 9/26/2014 3:19 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:25:49 +0400 Oleg Bondarev obonda...@mirantis.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote: I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. Agree. However what do you think a user expects when he/she boots a vm (no matter providing port_id or just net_id) and specifies security_groups? I think the expectation should be that instance will become a member of the specified groups. Ignoring security_groups parameter in case port is provided (as it is now) seems completely unfair to me. One option would be to return a 400 if both port id and security_groups is supplied. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev I'd get behind this, it would keep the complexity in nova low if you're already using neutron. We already have some validation like this today in the compute API depending on what you're providing on the request for networks, fixed IPs and ports. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
Hi All, Creation of server with command 'nova boot --image image --flavor m1.medium --nic port-id=port-id --security-groups sec_grp name' fails to attach the security group to the port/instance. The response payload has the security group added but only default security group is attached to the instance. Separate action has to be performed on the instance to add sec_grp, and it is successful. Supplying the same with '--nic net-id=net-id' works as expected. Is this the expected behaviour / are there any other options which needs to be specified to add the security group when port-id needs to be attached during boot. Thanks, Parikshit Manur ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
Hi Parikshit, Looks like a bug. Currently if port is specified its security groups are not updated, it shpould be fixed. I've reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1373774 to track this. Thanks for reporting! Thanks, Oleg On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Parikshit Manur parikshit.ma...@citrix.com wrote: Hi All, Creation of server with command ‘nova boot --image image --flavor m1.medium --nic port-id=port-id --security-groups sec_grp name’ fails to attach the security group to the port/instance. The response payload has the security group added but only default security group is attached to the instance. Separate action has to be performed on the instance to add sec_grp, and it is successful. Supplying the same with ‘--nic net-id=net-id’ works as expected. Is this the expected behaviour / are there any other options which needs to be specified to add the security group when port-id needs to be attached during boot. Thanks, Parikshit Manur ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot.
I think the expectation is that if a user is already interaction with Neutron to create ports then they should do the security group assignment in Neutron as well. The trouble I see with supporting this way of assigning security groups is what should the correct behavior be if the user passes more than one port into the Nova boot command ? In the case where Nova is creating the ports it kind of feels (just) Ok to assign the security groups to all the ports. In the case where the ports have already been created then it doesn’t feel right to me that Nova modifies them. From: Oleg Bondarev [mailto:obonda...@mirantis.com] Sent: 25 September 2014 08:19 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [NOVA] security group fails to attach to an instance if port-id is specified during boot. Hi Parikshit, Looks like a bug. Currently if port is specified its security groups are not updated, it shpould be fixed. I've reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1373774 to track this. Thanks for reporting! Thanks, Oleg On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Parikshit Manur parikshit.ma...@citrix.commailto:parikshit.ma...@citrix.com wrote: Hi All, Creation of server with command ‘nova boot --image image --flavor m1.medium --nic port-id=port-id --security-groups sec_grp name’ fails to attach the security group to the port/instance. The response payload has the security group added but only default security group is attached to the instance. Separate action has to be performed on the instance to add sec_grp, and it is successful. Supplying the same with ‘--nic net-id=net-id’ works as expected. Is this the expected behaviour / are there any other options which needs to be specified to add the security group when port-id needs to be attached during boot. Thanks, Parikshit Manur ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto: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
