| [00:00] <cjwatson> One bot with queue admin on Ubuntu is quite enough thankyouverymuch and I'd like to try to keep privileges at least slightly least | |
| [00:00] <wgrant> It all becomes a lot simpler when scalingstack is everywhere, but we still need to make private archives non-hideous. | |
| [00:00] <wgrant> If possible. | |
| [00:00] <cjwatson> So maybe we can still have somewhat different rules for public and private archives | |
| [00:02] <cjwatson> But trying to have a common class of solution for private and devirt means either something that looks for any devirt archive, or adding an ArchivePermission to Ubuntu primary, or a special-case hack of some kind | |
| [00:03] <cjwatson> I'd managed to avoid adding a celebrity so far ... | |
| [00:08] <wgrant> https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1F1wh8MxaxC-pSx5yMsFNpKFm5Mytsvn0Ugw2AIgQXzU/edit# | |
| [00:10] <cjwatson> I was just writing up something too, only in vim :P | |
| [00:10] <wgrant> vim sadly isn't easily multi-user. | |
| [00:10] <wgrant> As much as I'd prefer it :) | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> Right, just lots more pleasant to use when my mirror sync and backups are both running | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> But let's see | |
| [00:11] <wgrant> Heh | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> Any LiveFS can be built against a public archive. | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> To build a LiveFS against a private archive, the owners must match exactly. | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> => registrant is in common owner => registrant can see archive | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> was what I had so far | |
| [00:11] <cjwatson> LiveFS gains a require_virtualized column, set by admins as for PPAs. (This is a bit more cumbersome, but lets us vet owners, and LiveFSBuild : LiveFS :: PPA builds : Archive, after a fashion.) | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> Right, the require_virtualized thing is hideous, but hopefully ~temporary. | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> The private archive restriction is hopefully not terribly onerous. | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> And can always be relaxed later, I suppose, if we run into real problems with PES. | |
| [00:13] <cjwatson> Even though that means the answers to the two problems are quite different rather than paralleling each other, I think that's actually sufficient given the existing LiveFS.requestBuild security | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> Having such a security-sensitive flag duplicated on another table is awful, but hopefully of limited life due to scalingstack taking over the world. | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> So I'm not as far against it as I was late last year, when everyone was "omg we can't do scalingstack for Ubuntu the world will be on fire" | |
| [00:14] <cjwatson> It's sort of duplication but not entirely | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> It's another class of objects that we have to check for terrible security holes. | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> In terms of nagios checks for owners and such. | |
| [00:15] <cjwatson> Yes, that's true, I should dig those up for comparison. Are they in puppet? | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> But I think those two solutions are workable for now. | |
| [00:16] <wgrant> I'm not sure if they actually exist in any particularly current fashion. There are RTs which suggest they might not actually work. | |
| [00:16] <cjwatson> Yay. | |
| [00:19] <wgrant> Anyway, sounds like this should be relatively easy to implement for you? | |
| [00:19] <wgrant> Just need to ensure that the permission checks occur at dispatch time (as well?) | |
| [00:20] <cjwatson> Trying to rationalise this: a write permission check on the archive helps for privacy (buildd secret), but is wrong for virtness because really we're only reading from the archive and might well need to do a livefs build on devirt hardware for make-it-work reasons but with a virt PPA as a dependency. | |
| [00:20] <wgrant> Though I guess the lack of retries means that's not such a huge issue, still. | |
| [00:21] <wgrant> Right, that sounds reasonable. | |
| [00:21] <cjwatson> Yes, I can do this tomorrow. I have indeed got the message that it needs to be done at dispatch time. :-) Worth doing at least lightweight checks (and probably all of this is sufficiently lightweight) in the model on requests as well. | |
| [00:22] <wgrant> Definitely. | |
| [00:22] <wgrant> It's all pretty lightweight now you're not doing a hideous query over every ArchivePermission evar. | |
| [00:22] <cjwatson> SSD DBs baby | |
| [00:22] <cjwatson> or maybe not | |
| [00:22] <wgrant> Maybe before the heat death of the universe. | |
| [00:24] <cjwatson> I've done the rest of your review, so will just need to go round again and make sure I haven't broken the browser code, and make sure it still works end-to-end | |
| [00:25] <wgrant> cjwatson: I'm just wondering how likely it is that people will shoot themselves in the foot by building some random PPA on a non-virt LiveFS. | |
| [00:26] <wgrant> s/themselvesk in the foot/us in the face/ | |
| [00:26] <cjwatson> Well, the most important use case for building a LiveFS against a PPA is the CI engine stuff | |
| [00:27] <cjwatson> Secondarily, letting flavours run short-term experiments | |
| [00:27] <cjwatson> The first is already all devirt, and perhaps we can just say that for the second you get to copy the LiveFS to a require_virtualized=True flavour | |
| [00:27] <wgrant> Yeah, exactly. | |
| [00:28] <wgrant> The only cases in which it really makes sense to do a nonvirt livefs on a virt PPA are narrow | |
| [00:28] <cjwatson> And then say that if LiveFS.require_virtualised is False then so must Archive.require_virtualised be. | |
| [00:28] <wgrant> Arch-indep only changes, and old Xen kernels | |
| [00:28] <wgrant> And the latter is going to go away in a couple of weeks i hope. | |
| [00:28] <wgrant> So I think that restriction would be sensible. | |
| [00:28] <cjwatson> Certainly don't think it makes sense to design this around the Xen constraints | |
| [00:29] <cjwatson> Kubuntu want to do PPA-based livefs experiments in the not too distant future | |
| [00:29] <wgrant> Yes, mostly documenting that so I can review IRC logs when in 18 months I wonder why we made stupid decisions. | |
| [00:29] <cjwatson> But I think we can hold that off for a while | |
| [00:29] <cjwatson> The CI engine stuff can't really wait | |
| [00:30] <wgrant> CI is all non-virt | |
| [00:30] <wgrant> Presumably Kubuntu would have to be too. | |
| [00:30] <cjwatson> Exactly | |
| [00:30] <cjwatson> Well | |
| [00:30] <wgrant> Or they'll be missing powerpc packages | |
| [00:30] <wgrant> In which case they wouldn't want powerpc ISOs anyway | |
| [00:30] <cjwatson> I'm not sure they care about powerpc for the experiments in question | |
| [00:30] <cjwatson> I haven't really analysed it but I suspect they could go all virt | |
| [00:31] <cjwatson> Which would save us from having to deal with the devirt => Canonical restriction | |
| [00:31] <wgrant> Right, but the only interesting case is a mixed one. | |
| [00:31] <wgrant> And Kubuntu doesn't seem to require that. | |
| [00:31] <wgrant> Nor does CI | |
| [00:31] <wgrant> And I can't think of any that do. | |
| [00:32] <cjwatson> The ones I can think of are quick experiments - "what happens if I build an image based on this change", outside the CI system | |
| [00:32] <cjwatson> But we could have people copy the livefs for that | |
| [00:33] <wgrant> Right, and they already have to copy if they don't participate in the livefs owner. | |
| [00:33] <wgrant> So copies have to work well anyway. | |
| [00:33] <cjwatson> Or even just say that if you try to build a LiveFS against a virt archive then the build ends up virtualised too. | |
| [00:33] <wgrant> Ah, that would work, indeed. | |
| [00:33] <wgrant> A LiveFS build is non-virt iff its LiveFS and Archive both are. | |
| [00:34] <cjwatson> It's require_virtualized not require_devirtualized, so it can be implicit in that direction. | |
| [00:38] <wgrant> I think those were the only thorny issues in the review, weren't they? | |
| [00:40] <cjwatson> There were a few things I had to slightly guess at how to implement correctly, but nothing else was fundamentally hard, no. | |
| [00:42] * cjwatson sleeps, thanks for the help | |
| [00:43] <wgrant> Night, thanks for working this out | |
| [00:43] <wgrant> I'll hopefully approve your UI branch today, now that we know model changes aren't required. | |
| [13:13] <wgrant> stub: https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/ppa-reset-2.0-db/+merge/223395 could use a review some time tomorrow, if you've time. | |
| [13:14] <stub> wgrant: k | |
| [13:14] <wgrant> Oh, you're still alive. | |
| [13:18] <stub> wgrant: what does a null vm_reset_protocol mean? | |
| [13:19] <wgrant> stub: Same as null vm_host -- incomplete setup if the virtualized flag is set | |
| [13:19] <wgrant> We'll refuse to dispatch in that case, as we do with vm_host | |
| [13:19] <wgrant> I could add a CHECK constraint to that effect, but then I'd have to fix all the tests that violate that constraint with vm_host already. | |
| [13:19] <wgrant> And given this will hopefully all go away within 12 months... | |
| [13:20] <stub> Yup. and unlikely worth adding the constraints for that, if we can. | |
| [13:21] <wgrant> stub: Thanks. | |
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | |
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | |
| === Laney is now known as mrage | |
| === mrage is now known as Laney | |
| [16:38] <cjwatson> wgrant: I believe I've implemented all the livefs stuff from last night (including a db-livefs change) and fixed up livefs-browser to match. Just running an end-to-end build now. | |
| [16:38] <cjwatson> wgrant: But should be ready for re-review of the changes. | |
| [17:33] <cjwatson> wgrant: End-to-end build test still works. | |
| === btulchin_ is now known as btulchinsky | |
| [23:46] <wgrant> cjwatson: Lovely, let me see. | |