>From API perspective, there is no restriction on port ownership within one
>tenant.
If tenant wants to change the ownership - it can do that. Also, there is no
problems with atomicity, because API calls act quite atomically.
What you are looking for is transactional semantics where such client problem
could be resolved, but I don't think neutron is going to provide such ability
any time soon, and also I don't think it is on the map.
** Changed in: neutron
Status: New => Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo!
Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1500365
Title:
neutron port API does not support atomicity
Status in neutron:
Opinion
Bug description:
Neutron port API offers an update method where the user of the API can say "I
use this port" by setting the device_owner and device_id fields of the port.
However the neutron API does not prevent port allocation race conditions.
The API semantic is that a port is used if the device_id and the device_owner
fields are set, and not used if they aren't. Now lets have two clients that
both want to set the ownership of the port. Both clients first have to check if
the port is free or not by checking the value of the device_owner and device_id
fields of the port, then they have to set the those fields to express
ownership.
If the two clients act parallel it is pretty much possible that both clients
see that the fields are empty and both issue the port update command. This can
leads to race conditions between clients.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1500365/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
