On 3 June 2016 at 13:31, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Henry Gessau <hen...@gessau.net> wrote: > > Darek Smigiel <smigiel.dari...@gmail.com> 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 me, this is a nonsensical outcome and tells me that subnets > probably shouldn't really have owners distinct from the network's. >
This might turn out to be a PEBCAK, as an admin can create a subnet on behalf of a tenant by specifying his/her tenant id on the request, and that might as well be the reason why this was never tackled before and we have a latent loop in the code. Having said that I think I lean on avoiding the ransomware situation where a tenant cannot delete his/her own resources, unless the other tenant frees up the resource explicitly, but only for situations where the resource is indeed idle. I would be extra cautious of elevating the context indiscriminately though. > > Carl > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
