openstack team mailing list archive

[Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

jrd@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>    * Switch to rootwrap_config and deprecate root_helper
>>    This would fully align quantum-rootwrap with nova-rootwrap. However I'm
>>    not sure it's reasonable to deprecate root_helper=sudo in Folsom, given
>>    how little tested quantum-rootwrap seems to be on Folsom. Maybe just
>>    introducing rootwrap_config but leaving the deprecation message out ?
>>    You can have a look at:
>>    https://github.com/openstack/cinder/commit/2b2c97eb5ca332ce7d1f83e4fd2e81fabe0acb66
>>    
> 
> Ok.  I did talk through this issue with Bob yesterday, but I'd be
> lying if I said I understood it all yet.
> 
> Let me ask this:  Since, as you say, there's not a lot of evidence of
> traffic through quantum-rootwrap, is there an obvious downside to
> deprecating root_helper=sudo at this stage?  I'm not advocating either
> way, just trying to get up to speed on all the parts of the issue.

Well, since there is not a lot of evidence of traffic through the
rootwrap, that means almost everyone is using root_helper=sudo. Marking
it deprecated, and recommending that everyone switches to the (untested
yet) rootwrap doesn't sound that much like a great idea.

I think we should deprecate root_helper=sudo when we are confident that
most people are using rootwrap and are satisfied with it.

> My goal is by end of today , or tomorrow morning latest, to have at
> least a reasonably complete understanding of the changes necessary to
> get the quantum-rootwrap facility up to parity with nova/cinder.  If I
> get to that deadline and I'm not there, I'll probably punt, as it
> becomes too much of a hail-mary to get the stuff stabilized and
> reviewed etc by tues.

That sounds reasonable.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack