Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-21 Thread Ihar Hrachyshka
> On 21 Jun 2016, at 08:47, Armando M. wrote: > > > > On 20 June 2016 at 18:41, Carl Baldwin wrote: > Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just > reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding > tenant id to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-21 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Armando M. wrote: > It seems it may potentially limit the ability to describe ownership. > Virtually all Neutron models have it. Not sure I see the value in its > absence. I'm just saying that I don't see value in its presence. The value that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-21 Thread Armando M.
On 20 June 2016 at 18:41, Carl Baldwin wrote: > Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just > reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding > tenant id to segment. But, it also enforces that tenant id is the > same as that of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-20 Thread Carl Baldwin
Somehow, this thread hid from me for a couple of weeks. I just reviewed something relevant to this here [1]. It proposes adding tenant id to segment. But, it also enforces that tenant id is the same as that of the network owning the segment. So, I say why store it at all? I would argue that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Henry Gessau
Carl Baldwin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote: >> Darek Smigiel wrote: >>> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and >>> subnets. >> >> But not all the subnets are his, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Armando M.
On 3 June 2016 at 13:31, Carl Baldwin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote: > > Darek Smigiel wrote: > >> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and > subnets. > > > > But not all

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Brandon Logan
To me, it seems more appropriate to delete all the subnets no matter who they're owned by if the owner of the network decided they wanted to delete it.  If there is a subnet associated with their network that they do not see, then the delete network call would have to fail.  That's going to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau wrote: > Darek Smigiel wrote: >> strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and subnets. > > But not all the subnets are his, and consequently the network is partially not > his. To

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Henry Gessau
Darek Smigiel wrote: > strange, that owner is not able to just get rid of *his* network and subnets. But not all the subnets are his, and consequently the network is partially not his. Why did the admin create a subnet on the user's network in [1]? IMO the admin

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Darek Smigiel wrote: > Hello, > Doing reviews I noticed, that Liu Yong submitted a bug [1] where we have a > problem with removing subnets. This makes me wonder what the use case that gets in to this situation. > In short: if tenant

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Elevating context to remove subnets created by admin

2016-06-03 Thread Darek Smigiel
Hello, Doing reviews I noticed, that Liu Yong submitted a bug [1] where we have a problem with removing subnets. In short: if tenant wants to delete network with subnets, where at least one of subnets is created by admin, he’s not able to do this. Liu also prepared bugfix for it [2], but now