yahoo-eng-team team mailing list archive

[Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>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