In a chat with Dan Smith on IRC, he was suggesting that the important thing was not to use class paths in the config file. I can see that internal implementation should not be exposed in the config files - that way the implementation can change without impacting the nova users/operators.
Sandy, I'm not sure I really get the security argument. Python provides every means possible to inject code, not sure plugins are so different. Certainly agree on choosing which plugins you want to use though. -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com] Sent: 04 March 2014 17:50 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services) Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Nova] What is the currently accepted way to do plugins This brings up something that's been gnawing at me for a while now ... why use entry-point based loaders at all? I don't see the problem they're trying to solve. (I thought I got it for a while, but I was clearly fooling myself) 1. If you use the "load all drivers in this category" feature, that's a security risk since any compromised python library could hold a trojan. 2. otherwise you have to explicitly name the plugins you want (or don't want) anyway, so why have the extra indirection of the entry-point? Why not just name the desired modules directly? 3. the real value of a loader would be to also extend/manage the python path ... that's where the deployment pain is. "Use <fully qualified filename> driver and take care of the pathing for me." Abstracting the module/class/function name isn't a great win. I don't see where the value is for the added pain (entry-point management/package metadata) it brings. CMV, -S ________________________________________ From: Russell Bryant [rbry...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:29 PM To: Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services); OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] What is the currently accepted way to do plugins On 03/04/2014 06:27 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services) wrote: > One of my patches has a query asking if I am using the agreed way to > load plugins: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/71557/ > > I followed the same approach as filters/weights/metrics using > nova.loadables. Was there an agreement to do it a different way? And > if so, what is the agreed way of doing it? A pointer to an example or > even documentation/wiki page would be appreciated. The short version is entry-point based plugins using stevedore. We should be careful though. We need to limit what we expose as external plug points, even if we consider them unstable. If we don't want it to be public, it may not make sense for it to be a plugin interface at all. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ 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
