14:00:40 <jbernard> #startmeeting cinder
14:00:40 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Aug 28 14:00:40 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:40 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:40 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:00:46 <jbernard> #topic roll call
14:00:58 <whoami-rajat> Hi
14:00:58 <raghavendrat> hi
14:01:02 <NotTheEvilOne> Hi
14:01:03 <akawai> o/
14:01:04 <Luzi> o/
14:01:13 <Sai> o/
14:01:39 <jungleboyj> o/
14:01:47 <Nilesh_Thathagar> Hi
14:02:22 <msaravan> Hi
14:02:47 <rosmaita> o/
14:03:19 <cherry> o/
14:03:54 <jbernard> o/ hello everyone, thanks for coming
14:03:56 <tosky> o/
14:04:05 <jbernard> just a minute or two more and we'll get started
14:04:50 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-dalmatian-meetings
14:04:59 <jbernard> #link https://releases.openstack.org/dalmatian/schedule.html
14:07:27 <jbernard> ok
14:07:48 <jbernard> so... :) basically just reviews at this point
14:08:13 <jbernard> we have an etherpad from last week
14:08:15 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-dalmatian-reviews
14:08:44 <jbernard> my primary question is whether the reviews in today's meeting etherpad/adgenda are in sync with the review etherpad
14:08:52 <rosmaita> apologies for lateness, but i just added an agenda item
14:08:57 <rosmaita> cinderclient release
14:09:15 <jbernard> ok, lets cover that now then
14:09:24 <jbernard> #topic cinder client release
14:09:36 <rosmaita> there are a bunch of small patches open
14:09:47 <rosmaita> https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/python-cinderclient+status:open+branch:master
14:10:09 <rosmaita> probably all the ones with "Fix" in the subject are important
14:10:41 <jbernard> there are currently 3, all small in size
14:11:24 <rosmaita> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/915798 has a -1, but the author did reply saying that the change is actually correct
14:12:11 <whoami-rajat> i will take another look at that
14:12:19 <rosmaita> thanks!
14:12:33 <rosmaita> also, whoami-rajat, what about stephenfin's deprecation patches?
14:12:50 <rosmaita> do we still want to hold off on those?
14:12:53 <whoami-rajat> deprecating cinderclient?
14:13:05 <rosmaita> 841725: Deprecate cinder CLI | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/841725
14:13:19 <rosmaita> (and the docs change patch)
14:13:21 <whoami-rajat> yes, we still have some command support missing in OSC and a lot of support missing in SDK
14:13:34 <rosmaita> ok, then we won't address those yet
14:13:46 <whoami-rajat> I haven't been actively working on the effort so if anyone would like to take it up, I might have a list somewhere of the missing support
14:15:05 <rosmaita> this one looks kind of important/useful: 926264: Add support for service query to os-availability-zone | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/926264
14:15:05 <rosmaita> but it depends on a cinder change that hasn't merged ... jbernard you might want to keep an eye on that for Epoxy cycle
14:15:52 <jbernard> sure
14:16:49 <jbernard> if it's feasible, we should try to prioritize this in the next cycle so we can have it done
14:18:05 <jbernard> if anyone would like to review the "Fix" client patches, that would be appreciated, tomorrow is the client deadline
14:18:32 <jbernard> #topic status update
14:18:55 <jbernard> from last week, we were able to review and merge the patches needed for os-brick for the upcoming release
14:19:08 <rosmaita> \o/
14:19:15 <jbernard> i think brick is in (relatively) good shape at the moment
14:19:42 <jbernard> a few pending patches for cinderclient
14:20:00 <jbernard> the bulk of the remaining work right now is in cinder patch review
14:20:20 <jbernard> some have merged, some have feedback, and some are still waiting
14:20:39 <jbernard> huge thanks to everyone that has helped out
14:21:13 <jbernard> burning down our review queue remains the priority for the week
14:21:28 <jbernard> feature freeze is at the end of week
14:21:58 <jbernard> exceptions can be made if there is a strong case, but it is my goal to to make that deadline too frantic for us
14:22:14 <jbernard> /not/ too frantic, sorry
14:22:42 <rosmaita> sorry to break in ... looks like we are down to 2 cinderclient patches (lines 31-34 in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-dalmatian-reviews )
14:23:07 <jbernard> awesome
14:23:52 <jbernard> the only thing i want to add is - please make sure the review etherpad is up to date with review requests
14:23:52 <jungleboyj> I just +W'd the transfer-delete one.
14:23:58 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-dalmatian-reviews
14:24:19 <jbernard> i see there are some duplicates in today's adgenda, i just want to make sure we're all working from the same source
14:24:44 <rosmaita> jbernard: sorry to break in again, but you should mention https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/927312
14:25:04 <jbernard> ahh, yes, one other status point :)
14:25:31 <jbernard> i added myself into the ptl nomination for epoxy (2025.1)
14:25:42 <rosmaita> \o/
14:25:59 <jungleboyj> \o/
14:26:22 <jungleboyj> Good to know.  Thank you jbernard !
14:26:47 <jbernard> thanks ya'll
14:27:15 <jbernard> that's all from me
14:27:22 <jbernard> #topic open discussion
14:27:38 <Nilesh_Thathagar> Hi, I have one question.
14:27:47 <jbernard> Nilesh_Thathagar: please
14:27:52 <Nilesh_Thathagar> Do we allow backport requests into Zed and Yoga? A team is asking to backport Dell PowerFlex bug fixes into these versions for a specific customer.
14:28:12 <rosmaita> those are "unmaintained" branches
14:28:25 <rosmaita> you would have to discuss with the "unmaintained" maintainers
14:28:38 <Gayathri> Hi, I have a query
14:28:40 <rosmaita> i think there is an #openstack-unmaintained irc channel
14:28:54 <Nilesh_Thathagar> but it is possible right?
14:29:03 <rosmaita> Nilesh_Thathagar: unknown
14:29:04 <Nilesh_Thathagar> to backport
14:29:39 <rosmaita> Nilesh_Thathagar: if they are bugfixes, pretty likely; something more complicated, don't know
14:29:58 <Nilesh_Thathagar> ok got it thanks
14:30:20 <whoami-rajat> Gayathri, go ahead
14:30:25 <Gayathri> During BlackDuck Scan for cinder project. We had found some high security and operational vulnerabilities, which needs to be remediated either by upgrading the respective library file versions? Is there any process available, Inorder to fix the security and operational issues? Generally How much timeframe will be required?
14:31:36 <whoami-rajat> rosmaita, i performed some tests with the recommendation and was able to reproduce the issue, also applying the fix fixed the issue, added a comment and +2ed it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-cinderclient/+/915798/comments/0514bd2f_e8a3ff9e
14:31:58 <whoami-rajat> though it's still missing UT and releasenote, it seems important enough for the release
14:31:58 <rosmaita> whoami-rajat: thanks!
14:32:11 <eharney> Gayathri: where were these issues reported?
14:32:58 <Gayathri> This is an internal scan we had performed for our project, let me know where these issues needs to be reported?
14:33:55 <jbernard> geguileo: if you're around, since it's related to our review priority, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/925722 could use your input
14:33:57 <eharney> https://security.openstack.org/reporting.html
14:34:10 <eharney> please try to determine if they are actual issues when reporting
14:35:10 <Gayathri> can I report both operational and security issues on the above URL
14:35:53 <geguileo> jbernard: ok
14:36:13 <msaravan> Thank you geguileo and jbernard
14:37:15 <geguileo> I have to read the responses to my comments, because I was pretty sure I was right when I wrote them...
14:37:30 <Sai> Thank you @geguileo and @jbernard
14:37:31 <Gayathri> Generally how much time does it take to resolve after reporting the  issue?
14:38:06 <rosmaita> Gayathri: you should hear back fairly quickly; resolution must be within 90 days, or the bug becomes public
14:38:08 <jbernard> geguileo: that's what im curious about, it would be great to have this in before feature freeze if it's ready
14:38:25 <eharney> Gayathri: depends on the bug, non-security bugs can go to https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder
14:38:39 <Gayathri> Thank you
14:39:20 <Luzi> Hi, how can we proceed with the image encryption patches? There are patches for Glance and Cinder (and Nova, but this only changes a few lines to use os-brick for native LUKS connection).
14:39:53 <jbernard> Luzi: can you summarize what is needed at the moment?
14:40:20 <jbernard> if we need cross project collaboration, I can try to fetch folks and coordinate communication
14:40:25 <Luzi> mhen tested all the patches together, it would need reviews for the Cinder and the Glance patch
14:40:32 <Luzi> yes this is cross-project with Glance
14:41:15 <mhen> I think we need some eyes on the patchsets especially from folks familiar with Cinder backends other than rbd
14:41:15 <Luzi> the patches are: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/926295 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/926298
14:41:28 <jbernard> this too? https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22LUKS-image-encryption%22
14:41:38 <mhen> this is the general topic label
14:41:43 <mhen> they are both part of it
14:42:16 <jbernard> it would be helpful if the cinder patch were passing upstream gate
14:42:48 <mhen> I'm currently looking into the Zuul reports of the Cinder patch
14:42:57 <mhen> not able to reproduce everything yet
14:43:14 <jbernard> do we know where glance is at wrt their side?
14:43:17 <mhen> and other storage backends than lvm or rbd are currently out of reach for me in terms of testing
14:45:23 <Luzi> Unfortunately I have a conflict with the Glance meeting, so I cannot ask them directly.
14:46:19 <Luzi> conflicting time slot I mean
14:46:46 <jbernard> ok, i will query glance, mhen - if you can get the gate to pass, we have a chance to move it forward
14:47:05 <mhen> I'll see what I can do
14:47:13 <Luzi> That is the reason I am asking for a general way on how to proceed, I also added this to the Glance meeting, so they can discuss without me and mhen
14:47:44 <Luzi> Thank you jbernard
14:48:18 <mhen> quick question regarding the CI on the Cinder patchset:
14:48:55 <mhen> I see a lot of vendor specific pipelines failing (HPE, Fujitsu etc.) - is this anything to worry about?
14:49:14 <mhen> or should I concentrate on the Zuul pipeline for now?
14:49:23 <whoami-rajat> mhen, if your code touches those drivers then yes, otherwise no
14:49:49 <whoami-rajat> "touches" can be directly or indirectly, if your new code is invoked/used by driver
14:50:09 <mhen> I guess I do touch the base class iirc
14:50:24 <whoami-rajat> just make sure tests related to encryption are not breaking in any CI -- i think your changes only affect those
14:53:01 <mhen> guess I need to dig into the respective logs then
14:54:42 <jbernard> ok, anything else?
14:54:54 <mhen> not from my side, thanks
14:55:04 <jbernard> no problem
14:55:28 <jbernard> thanks everyone for the reviews so far, reach out if needed, and have a good rest of the week
14:55:32 <jbernard> #endmeeting