Le 06/11/2015 07:08, Tony Breeds a écrit :
Hello all,
I came across [1] which is notionally an ironic bug in that horizon
presents
VM operations (like suspend) to users. Clearly these options don't make sense
to ironic which can be confusing.
There is a horizon fix that just disables migrate/suspened and other functaions
if the operator sets a flag say ironic is present. Clealy this is sub optimal
for a mixed hv environment.
The data needed (hpervisor type) is currently avilable only to admins, a quick
hack to remove this policy restriction is functional.
There are a few ways to solve this.
1. Change the default from "rule:admin_api" to "" (for
os_compute_api:os-extended-server-attributes and
os_compute_api:os-hypervisors), and set a list of values we're
comfortbale exposing the user (hypervisor_type and
hypervisor_hostname). So a user can get the hypervisor_name as part of
the instance deatils and get the hypervisor_type from the
os-hypervisors. This would work for horizon but increases the API load
on nova and kinda implies that horizon would have to cache the data and
open-code assumptions that hypervisor_type can/can't do action $x
2. Include the hypervisor_type with the instance data. This would place the
burdon on nova. It makes the looking up instance details slightly more
complex but doesn't result in additional API queries, nor caching
overhead in horizon. This has the same opencoding issues as Option 1.
3. Define a service user and have horizon look up the hypervisors details via
that role. Has all the drawbacks as option 1 and I'm struggling to
think of many benefits.
4. Create a capabilitioes API of some description, that can be queried so that
consumers (horizon) can known
5. Some other way for users to know what kind of hypervisor they're on,
Perhaps
there is an established image property that would work here?
If we're okay with exposing the hypervisor_type to users, then #2 is pretty
quick and easy, and could be done in Mitaka. Option 4 is probably the best
long term solution but I think is best done in 'N' as it needs lots of
discussion.
I'm pretty opposed to giving hypervisor details to end-users for many
reasons (security flaw, cloud abstractional model and API not being a
discovery tool are my first top things coming in mind).
I'd rather prefer to see Horizon as an admin able to get the specific
bits about the driver and only show to the user what the driver can support.
That's also IMHO a bit tied to the Hypervisor Support Matrix [1] and
from a better and more maintenable standpoint, the Feature
Classification effort [2] because it would ensure that the
'capabilities' API that you mention is accurate and up-to-date.
-Sylvain
[1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/support-matrix.html
[2]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/215664/4/doc/source/feature_classification.rst,cm
Yours Tony.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1483639
__________________________________________________________________________
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
