Thursday, 2024-02-22

clarkbit is surprisingly difficult to get bookworm's dkms packages to build with gcc 11 instead of 1200:39
clarkbchanging gcc/cc to gcc-11 didn't do it. Uninstalling gcc-12 removes the linux kernel headers.00:39
clarkbI know why they do it, the kernel was built with 12 so you should build things with 12 too. But I wanted to see if gcc 11 produces a different relocation result in the elf00:40
*** travisholton0 is now known as travisholton00:41
clarkbI think I'm going to give up on this for now. Maybe tomorrow we put together something we can file against debian and point to the nixos problem as being similar/the same00:42
clarkbI've learned a bit about things though which is nice I guess.00:42
clarkbextern struct key_type key_type_keyring __attribute__((weak));01:07
clarkbmy latest suspicion is that we're dealing with the __attribute__((weak)); definition here01:07
clarkbI suspect that the linker has done some relocation magic to resolve the weak key_type_keyring definition01:09
clarkbwhich I think is actually in the kernel01:09
clarkbya the linux kernel seems to define it in security/keys/keyring.c01:10
clarkbthere is another struct defined in a similar way but in the case of key_type_keying we make a pointer to point at its address in openafs: static struct key_type *__key_type_keyring = &key_type_keyring; so we've got to resolve things more concretely than the other weakly defined symbol?01:13
clarkbI half wonder if we can just refer to the address of key_type_keyring within the function there and have that move outside of the global stuff in the elf01:15
clarkbsince we'll be handling that in CODE instead01:15
clarkb?01:15
clarkbok I said I was done but then I couldn't help myself. I was able to build a libafs.ko that insmodded by dropping that __attribute__((weak));01:52
clarkbthat said I don't know if the key_type_keyring is the one I want to be referring to after all the linking is done01:55
clarkbbut it is defined extern so in theory it is locating the variable defined by the kernel?01:55
clarkband now I'm actually going to stop as I'm slightly paranoid I could do something to make afs unhappy. The modified and loadable module has been rmmod'd and I never actually performed any actions against afs other than insmodding the module02:17
clarkbI think if an unhappy client could create problems we would have bigger issues, but I'd rather not find out right now and let it be for now02:17
*** diablo_rojo is now known as Guest50003:09
*** enick_952 is now known as diablo_rojo03:09
fungijust a heads up, whatever crud i've come down with is still making me a bit spacey... i'll try to be around some today, but also trying to sleep this off13:38
clarkbI've joined the openafs channel on libera and did a summarized braindump of what I learned yesterday there15:01
clarkbsomeone in the openafs channel reports they will try to reproduce and if they manage to attempt to fix it15:50
fungiyay!16:06
fricklercorvus: in https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/project/opendev.org/openstack/kolla-ansible I'm seeing two tabs per branch with different content. not sure if that is somehow intentional or a bug?16:07
frickleroh, kolla even has six tabs per branch. might be related to those being defined in multiple files in .zuul.d/* ?16:08
corvusyeah those are project stanzas, the tab titles are misleading/incomplete16:16
fricklercorvus: now that you mention this, I think I may have asked this already earlier and forgotten about it. would it be possible to include the file reference somewhere or does that get lost while parsing the config?16:25
clarkbfungi: did  you want to weigh in on dropping opensuse functional jobs for bindep: https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/bindep/+/909771 we have coverage in the unittests which should be sufficient going forward16:26
fungiyep, sorry, been a bit out of it yesterday/today16:27
clarkbyup understood. More just wanting to avoid approving it if you are interested in looking it over16:28
fungii was hoping to find time to review them all16:28
clarkbok I did approve the bindep fallback job removal for opensuse and setting of max-servers to 016:28
clarkbI'll hold off on additional approvals so that you can take a look at the changes16:29
fungibut if there are already enough reviews, don't hold it up waiting for me16:29
opendevreviewMerged openstack/project-config master: Drop bindep fallback testing on opensuse  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90977516:34
corvusfrickler: possible, i think16:36
opendevreviewMerged openstack/project-config master: Set opensuse-15 min-ready to 0  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90977416:37
opendevreviewMerged opendev/bindep master: Drop bindep-opensuse-15 job  https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/bindep/+/90977117:29
opendevreviewMerged zuul/zuul-jobs master: Drop opensuse-15 jobs  https://review.opendev.org/c/zuul/zuul-jobs/+/90977217:41
clarkbhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/909770 is that last change remaining before I think we can start forcibly removing opensuse 1517:43
clarkbits the change above then https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/base-jobs/+/909773 then the nodepool cleanup then the mirror cleanup17:43
clarkbwoot the ozj change merged. fungi has reviewed 909773. Any objections to me approving it now?17:57
clarkbI think this will potentially create problems for keystone, devstack, and tempest17:57
fungii just didn't want to approve it before the deps were merged17:57
fungiapproved now17:58
clarkbmakes sense. Its also the one that will have an impact if any do17:58
fungiwe can push up patches to remove the lingering bits in those projects if necessary17:58
clarkbya I've got a few up. But I'm not going to bother pushing changes for every stable branch18:01
clarkbparticular in the case of opensuse these jobs haven't really ever worked and I don't feel like we should be responsible for figuring out how to clean that up18:02
clarkbthat does bring up an idea for me: maybe the openstack release process should have a "prune your zuul configs before branching occurs so that we don't carry old unused broken stuff forward another branch"18:02
opendevreviewMerged opendev/base-jobs master: Drop the opensuse-15 nodeset  https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/base-jobs/+/90977318:06
clarkbalright the next step is to remove the nodes and images. I'm going to make sure that all the booted nodes are gone18:09
clarkbcorvus: it should be safe to remove the image definitions and the node defs from nodepool all at once right? re https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90977618:11
clarkbThere are no opensuse nodes according to nodepool list18:12
clarkbso I think 909776 is ready to go assuming we're happy with removing the image and node pools all at once18:12
clarkber not pools but opensuse from pools18:13
frickler30 new config errors due to missing opensuse nodeset. but that was kind of to be expected, I'm not complaining, just noticing18:14
clarkbthe bifrost errors were not ones I had previously anticipated. The others are18:15
frickleriirc there was an intermediate step to be made for image removals in order to allow nodepool to remove them, but I'm not sure about the details18:17
clarkboh right we need to remove them from the pool defs so that we delete the images from the clouds18:17
clarkbthen we can remove the image from the builders18:17
clarkbI'll split the change18:17
frickleror maybe I'm mixing that up with removing a provider https://zuul-ci.org/docs/nodepool/latest/operation.html#removing-a-provider18:18
* clarkb reads18:18
clarkbI can do it that way to make sure we don't introduce unhappyness cleaning stuff up18:19
opendevreviewClark Boylan proposed openstack/project-config master: Drop opensuse image uploads from nodepool  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90977618:28
opendevreviewClark Boylan proposed openstack/project-config master: Remove opensuse-15 image builds from nodepool  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90992118:28
clarkbfrickler: ^ I think that should do it18:28
corvuslgtm i approved the 1st19:09
clarkbthanks!19:09
opendevreviewMerged openstack/project-config master: Drop opensuse image uploads from nodepool  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90977619:21
clarkbI think the opensuse image uploads are gone now. I'm going to take a berak for lunch and a bike right though if we want ot hold off on approving the second change to cleanup nodepool config19:39
clarkbeither way is fine with me19:39
fricklerclarkb: when you return maybe you can also check stable branch cleanups at https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/909606 (2 patches)19:44
fricklernodepool image-list doesn't show any opensuse images, so I'll approve the 2nd patch19:46
opendevreviewMerged openstack/project-config master: Remove opensuse-15 image builds from nodepool  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/90992119:54
clarkbfrickler: done23:09
clarkbinfra-root https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/system-config/+/909779 is the last step on our end for opensuse cleanup23:11
clarkbthe final opensuse mirroring script will get cleaned up when we remove centos 7 since that script syncs some obs stuff for centos 723:11
clarkbbut first I need to finish getting changes up to remove buster23:11
clarkb(since I said I would do buster before centos 7 in a couple of places)23:11
clarkbthere are a handful of dib .d dirs and hash files for opensuse images on nb01 and nb02. I'll clean those up now23:13
opendevreviewClark Boylan proposed opendev/system-config master: Upgrade gitea to 1.21.6  https://review.opendev.org/c/opendev/system-config/+/90994123:28

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!