| [00:20] <amansi26> Hi. I need to know, I installed a cloud-init v19.1 on a rhel8. I can see IP at /etc/sysconfig/network-script/ifcfg-env2 but when I do ip a ,IP is not getting assigned. | |
| [00:20] <amansi26> What can be the possible flow I can check? | |
| [00:22] <powersj> amansi26, https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topics/faq.html#where-are-the-logs | |
| [00:22] <powersj> I would review the logs in the above link | |
| [00:29] <amansi26> powersj: I check the log, I can see the IP under " applying net config names for" and the datasource used is configdrive | |
| [09:37] <shubas> Hi all ,is it possible to apply network config from datasource nocloud-net(for vm with pre configured temp network/dhcp) in either stage of cloudinit? asking after searching the docs and multiple testing with no success. | |
| [09:45] <meena> shubas: can you define no success? by, say, posting your cloud-config, and your log output? | |
| [09:49] <shubas> meta-data and user-data are aplied but network-config arn't ,using the same files in iso all configs are aplied. | |
| [09:52] <shubas> using default centos config with : datasource_list: [ NoCloud ] | |
| [09:52] <shubas> datasource: | |
| [09:52] <shubas> NoCloud: | |
| [09:52] <shubas> seedfrom: http://192.168.5.5/ | |
| [09:53] <meena> okay, then lets dig into the logs, and find out why network-config isn't applied. | |
| [10:20] <shubas> here is the log: https://send.firefox.com/download/fe67a07c819f84ac/#xI5VGQGxaK6pYqTiWJ947w | |
| [11:07] <meena> shubas: it says: 2020-01-16 09:57:49,299 - DataSourceNoCloud.py[DEBUG]: Seed from http://192.168.5.5/ not supported by DataSourceNoCloud [seed=None][dsmode=net] | |
| [11:12] <meena> oh, wait, that was init-local | |
| [11:14] <meena> 2020-01-16 09:57:58,999 - stages.py[DEBUG]: applying net config names for {'version': 1, 'config': [{'subnets': [{'type': 'dhcp'}], 'type': 'physical', 'name': 'eth0', 'mac_address': 'aa:ce:dc:b2:5c:06'}]} | |
| [11:17] <meena> so, shubas this reads fairly okay / successful to me. What about the config that you get as a result is different from what you're expecting? | |
| [11:22] <shubas> this is the fallback config ,it does not fetch the network-config file from seed | |
| [11:22] <meena> shubas: but it says it's doing that… | |
| [11:23] <meena> shubas: what's curl http://192.168.5.5/meta-data look like? | |
| [11:23] <meena> (or whatever the correct url is) | |
| [11:23] <shubas> also checked the access log for http://192.168.5.5/ , only fetching meta-data and user-data files | |
| [11:24] <shubas> the curl is ok ,i get the content | |
| [11:30] <shubas> is there a way to manually fetch and apply network config from seed through cloud-init? | |
| [11:31] <shubas> might provide more insight on what's happening | |
| [11:37] <meena> shubas: what's the config look like? | |
| [11:38] <shubas> cloud.cfg? | |
| [11:44] <meena> shubas: no, i meant the thing that you get from curl | |
| [11:49] <shubas> meta-data - | |
| [11:49] <shubas> instance-id: someid123 | |
| [11:49] <shubas> user-data - | |
| [11:49] <shubas> #cloud-config | |
| [11:49] <shubas> hostname: somehostname | |
| [11:49] <shubas> network-config - | |
| [11:49] <shubas> network: | |
| [11:49] <shubas> version: 1 | |
| [11:49] <shubas> config: | |
| [11:49] <shubas> - type: physical | |
| [11:49] <shubas> name: eth0 | |
| [11:49] <shubas> subnets: | |
| [11:49] <shubas> - type: static | |
| [11:49] <shubas> address: someIP | |
| [11:49] <shubas> netmask: someMASK | |
| [11:49] <shubas> gateway: someGW | |
| [11:49] <shubas> dns_nameservers: | |
| [11:49] <shubas> - 8.8.8.8 | |
| [11:49] <shubas> - 8.8.4.4 | |
| [11:55] <meena> not sure what, but something there isn't quite right | |
| [11:56] <meena> would be cool if it said what, rather than just applying dhcp | |
| [12:06] <shubas> at this point my thought is that the network config mathod is determined in the intial stage before the network seed is checked and so ignored in later stages | |
| [12:47] <otubo> talking about configuration, meena shubas can you confirm network_state is populated by conf file? | |
| [12:48] <otubo> I'm seeing too much code lately, need a visual confirmation :-) | |
| [13:28] <shubas> @otubo can you clearify what do you mean by network state and where should it be populated? | |
| [13:31] <otubo> shubas: sorry! I was able to figure out by my self. The answer is yes :) | |
| [13:32] <otubo> shubas: network_state is the variable filled with network configuration both read from cloud.cfg and from already existing network configuration present on the guest | |
| [13:45] <otubo> also, removing /var/lib/cloud/instance would be enough to emulate the first boot? Or should I need to do something else? | |
| [14:02] <shubas> "cloud-init clean" will do that | |
| [14:05] <meena> cloud-init clean --logs --reboot \o/ | |
| [14:11] <otubo> thanks people! | |
| [15:30] <rharper> otubo: yeah, reading the bug now | |
| [15:36] <otubo> rharper: _render_networkmanager_conf() is writing 99-cloud-init.conf *after* NM starts, and that's causing the problem | |
| [15:37] <rharper> otubo: so, the design for the network config by cloud-init is that at local time, we crawl imds for network config, and write out this config to the os dirs, *before* the networking service starts; so in your case, we've written sysconfig *and* resolv.conf values before NM starts | |
| [15:37] <rharper> otubo: so why does network-manager start before cloud-init-local.service ? | |
| [15:38] <rharper> Before=NetworkManager.service | |
| [15:38] <rharper> Before=network-pre.target | |
| [15:38] <rharper> we run local before NM and network-pre.target; this is when we write out all of our network config, so the 99 file *is* written before NM starts | |
| [15:38] <rharper> or something is very wrong with units | |
| [15:40] <otubo> So what you're saying is that on first boot, resolv.conf comes preconfigured for some reason, cloud-init writes dns=none and NM starts. And even though this happens NM wipes out the file on shutdown | |
| [15:40] <rharper> otubo: and " it does not change the resolv.conf file and this file is clean (reverted to clean state by NetworkManager during the first shutdown)." seems to be where our conflict lies; you said that NM does this because it started before the 99-cloud-init.conf which tells NM *not* to do that | |
| [15:41] <rharper> otubo: I don't know the contents of your resolv.conf before boot; typically it is a symbolic link to the systemd-resolved local caching resolver; but in older images it may be an empty file | |
| [15:42] <rharper> I know on SUSE we've had to adjust whether cloud-init writes anyting at all (we used to always write resolv.conf even if we didn't have dns values, which was fine for Ubuntu which had resolvconf managing the file) | |
| [15:43] <otubo> rharper: ok, good thoughts. I need to confirm the exact boot sequence and if NM is processing correctly the options on the config file. | |
| [15:43] <rharper> the correct sequence should be: 1. cloud-init local runs first, before NM, reads net config, writes out all sysconfig/NM config files 2. NM starts, and it should see the 99-cloud-init.conf which says "dns = none" which should prevent it cleaning it up on shutdown 3. cloud-init net runs after NM has started but before all things are online ... | |
| [15:44] <rharper> is the target OS systemd based? if so, I've found journalctl -o short-monotonic -b -u cloud-init-local.service -u NetworkManager.service -u cloud-init.service to be useful to see when they started | |
| [15:45] <rharper> otubo: your log seems to indicate that there may be a race here; but if you have a complete boot log from both scenarios, we can see if there's a different bug here; | |
| [15:46] <rharper> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bug/1843334 | |
| [15:46] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1843334 in cloud-init "Change location of DHCP leases in CloudStack provider as it doesn't work for RHEL8" [Medium,Fix released] | |
| [15:46] <rharper> otubo: that landed very recently, maybe that's not present in your cloud-init yet ? | |
| [15:47] <rharper> which could explain the race | |
| [15:53] <otubo> rharper: it looks like the boot sequence is correct, cloud-init indeed starts before NM https://pastebin.com/y65yFajd | |
| [15:54] <rharper> otubo: yes, but I wonder if there's a race between when cloud-init-local finishes and NM starts ... | |
| [15:54] <otubo> rharper: but I think NM ignores dns=none configuration, along the logs I can see one single entry of NM updating DNS | |
| [15:54] <rharper> or it's not yet written | |
| [15:55] <rharper> the ordering ensures that a unit is started before or after, but not necessariy complete | |
| [15:55] <otubo> oh I see | |
| [15:56] <otubo> rharper: rhel tree doesn't contain this fix for the bug 1843334 you pointed. I'll cherry pick and test. | |
| [15:56] <ubot5> bug 1843334 in cloud-init "Change location of DHCP leases in CloudStack provider as it doesn't work for RHEL8" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1843334 | |
| [15:57] <rharper> that may be enough to ensure there's time for local to write it's config | |
| [16:00] <rharper> otubo: so I think the ordering is strong enough; however, in the case where cloud-init local is doing a dhcp for metadata and the dhcp/network response is slow; I'm wondering if we'd find that NM would start before cloud-init writes that file; if so; we *might* want to issue a 'systemctl try-restart NetworkManager.service' which would restart NM IIF it was already started. | |
| [16:01] <otubo> rharper: Well, but i believe this is a good idea even if that fix solves my problem. | |
| [16:02] <otubo> rharper: I could write that feature in a near future | |
| [16:02] <rharper> yeah | |
| [16:02] <rharper> look at cloudinit/net/netplan.py which uses the _postcmds config; it allows a Distro class to specify commands to run after rendering a network config | |
| [16:03] <rharper> the freebsd renderer also makes use of this as another example | |
| [16:08] <otubo> rharper: yeah, didn't work. | |
| [16:09] <rharper> so | |
| [16:10] <rharper> local also does this: ExecStart=/bin/touch /run/cloud-init/network-config-ready | |
| [16:11] <rharper> hrm, we want logic like: if cloud-init ran, NM should wait untll this file is touched before starting; but in the case that cloud-init doesn't run (it's not activated) then NM should run whenever it normally would; | |
| [16:12] <otubo> rharper: what about we reload configuration when cloud-init.final finishes? Like `pkill -HUP NetworkManager' | |
| [16:13] <rharper> hrm, well, we could PreExec the reload in cloud-init.service as a drop in | |
| [16:14] <rharper> until code changes to use the try-restart land and release | |
| [16:25] <otubo> rharper: ok, I'm gonna try to include something with `systemctl try-restart NetworkManager.service' on _postcmds tomorrow morning. Thanks for the help :-) | |
| [16:28] <rharper> sure | |
| [16:32] <rharper> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/tGyGWJBq5t/ | |
| [16:32] <rharper> otubo: that is a systemd unit drop it config which would trigger the try-restart right before cloud-init.service | |
| [17:52] <blackboxsw_> Odd_Bloke: just pushed https://github.com/cloud-init/ubuntu-sru/pull/79 for SRU start | |
| [17:52] <blackboxsw_> -> errand | |
| === blackboxsw_ is now known as blackboxsw | |
| [19:17] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: util.subp will raise a ValueError if target is anything but None. The docstring says this is for compatibility with curtin's subp. Do you think that's a goal we still want to retain? | |
| [19:18] <Odd_Bloke> (I'm asking because nothing actually calls get_dpkg_architecture with a target that isn't None, so I was going to remove that parameter, then dug deeper and found this.) | |
| [19:38] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: I just added another note about what clouds SRU verification already covers https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/167 | |
| [19:41] <blackboxsw> SRU -proposed bits are up and accessible in xenial bionic and eoan-proposed. I'm writing up the notification email now | |
| [20:34] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/167 reviewed, we're getting there! | |
| [20:54] <blackboxsw> pushed changes Odd_Bloke thanks | |
| [20:54] <blackboxsw> and accepted all suggestions | |
| [21:17] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: LGTM now. I have another couple of minor nits (a missing : and the directive names), which I'll apply then merge. | |
| [21:19] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: Oh, no I'm not, I don't have permissions. | |
| [21:23] <blackboxsw> ? | |
| [21:24] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: I can't commit to your branch, so you'll need to apply this last round of nits. :) | |
| [21:24] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: I just clicked allow edits | |
| [21:24] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: does it work now I forgot to click that | |
| [21:26] <blackboxsw> I think in general Odd_Bloke if we are working through a bunch of nits it might be easier for you to review and me to grok the set of changes if you push over my branch, then I can diff to origin and walk through the full visual diff. walking through a bunch of accept suggestion links makes me feel I'm going to miss something. | |
| [21:27] <Odd_Bloke> OK, we can bear that in mind next time. | |
| [21:28] <Odd_Bloke> That's now how I prefer to receive changes, which is why I didn't try to do that. :) | |
| [21:28] <Odd_Bloke> (And also, I want you to be happy with the changes being made before I make them, unless they really are trivial!) | |
| [21:29] <blackboxsw> makes sense. I was just feeling a bit guilty for the number of review rounds you had to do Odd_Bloke | |
| [21:30] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke, so do I need to accept your last round of review comments or are you able to push to my branch? | |
| [21:30] <Odd_Bloke> Oh, I don't mind that at all. I've been feeling guilty about how many review rounds you had to do. :p | |
| [21:31] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: It's telling me I still don't have permissions, so why don't you accept them. | |
| [21:31] <Odd_Bloke> We can figure that out next time. | |
| [21:31] <blackboxsw> good we all have feelings of guilt to work out this year it seems :) | |
| [21:31] <blackboxsw> will do | |
| [21:33] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: blackboxsw: FYI, I've asked waveform (the Pi guy on the Foundations team) to file a bug for a mount issue they're seeing with cloud-init (I assume in Ubuntu Core), as they were talking about how to work around it. | |
| [21:36] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: You have a long line in there still, doc8 fails. | |
| [21:37] <Odd_Bloke> doc/rtd/topics/debugging.rst:171: D001 Line too long | |
| [21:39] <blackboxsw> d'oh | |
| [21:39] <Odd_Bloke> The dangers of using the GH suggestions. :) | |
| [21:39] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: oh, where was the discussion re: mount issues ? | |
| [21:39] <rharper> bug is best though | |
| [21:39] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: In the Foundations channel that I never /part'd. :p | |
| [21:40] <rharper> it's more likely run with systemd but cloud-init plays a role in writing those fstab entries out | |
| [21:40] <rharper> gotcha | |
| [21:40] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: force pushed the sru doc branch | |
| [21:40] <blackboxsw> should be good2go | |
| [21:41] <blackboxsw> community notice: I also just pushed a origin/stable-19.4 branch which was our last version of cloud-init to claim support for py2.7 | |
| === blackboxsw changed the topic of #cloud-init to: cloud-init pull-requests https://git.io/JeVed | Meeting minutes: https://goo.gl/mrHdaj | Next status meeting January 21 17:15 UTC | 19.4 (Dec 17) | 20.1 DROP py2.7 (Feb 18: origin/stable-19.4) | https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+filebug | |
| === blackboxsw changed the topic of #cloud-init to: cloud-init pull-requests https://git.io/JeVed | Meeting minutes: https://goo.gl/mrHdaj | Next status meeting January 21 17:15 UTC | 19.4 (Dec 17) | 20.1 DROP py2.7 (Feb 18) | https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+filebug | |
| [21:42] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: It's something to do with the cloud-init seed being on a drive that's already being mounted for some other reason; when we go to mount it, it's already mounted so *sad trombone* | |
| [21:43] <Odd_Bloke> But a bug is incoming. | |
| [21:43] <rharper> I suspect this is core20 fun | |
| [21:43] <Odd_Bloke> Yeah, I don't see why a Pi would have cloud-init (in a weird configuration) on it if it weren't. | |
| [21:43] <rharper> the writable partition includes the seed so it can be modified outside of the read-only image; | |
| [21:44] <rharper> oh, non-core pi image has cloud-init to auto generate keys, import them and do that outside of the base image; | |
| === blackboxsw changed the topic of #cloud-init to: cloud-init pull-requests https://git.io/JeVed | Meeting minutes: https://goo.gl/mrHdaj | Next status meeting January 21 17:15 UTC | 19.4 (Dec 17) drops Py2.7 : origin/stable-19.4 | 20.1 (Feb 18) | https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+filebug | |
| [21:44] <Odd_Bloke> Aha, OK, well we'll find out! | |
| [21:44] <rharper> core just makes things more complicated w.r.t not having a writable filesystem | |
| [21:44] <rharper> it was a nice improvement to allow cloud-init to read the boot directory of the pi's to look for cloud-config; so they can do a dd of the image and then write a cloud.cfg in the boot dir | |
| [21:45] <rharper> yes, we shall see =) | |
| [21:46] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: Did you overwrite the last set of changes you applied from the GH UI? | |
| [21:46] <Odd_Bloke> Looks like the directives have reverted. | |
| [21:46] <blackboxsw> geez man, you're probably correct. | |
| [21:46] <blackboxsw> I'll re-apply | |
| [21:50] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: tried to reapply, erased the code-block suggestions plus and opening cloud-init: | |
| [21:52] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: Approved. \o/ | |
| [21:54] <blackboxsw> thanks! | |
| [22:01] <johnsonshi> Hi, whenever I run tox -e py27, I get an error about test-requirements.txt | |
| [22:01] <johnsonshi> Requirement already satisfied: setuptools in ./.tox/py27/lib/python2.7/site-packages (from -r /source/test-requirements.txt (line 13)) (45.0.0) | |
| [22:01] <johnsonshi> ERROR: Package 'setuptools' requires a different Python: 2.7.12 not in '>=3.5' | |
| [22:01] <johnsonshi> ERROR: could not install deps [-r/source/test-requirements.txt]; v = InvocationError('/source/.tox/py27/bin/pip install -r/source/test-requirements.txt (see /source/.tox/py27/log/py27-1.log)', 1) | |
| [22:02] <johnsonshi> I have not modified test-requirements.txt at all, and my tox tests were running fine until a few days ago | |
| [22:02] <johnsonshi> Any possible reasons why this error is being thrown? | |
| [22:19] <Odd_Bloke> johnsonshi: I believe setuptools have dropped support for Python 2 in the latest release, which is what's causing that error. | |
| [22:20] <Odd_Bloke> johnsonshi: We've followed suit, however, and 19.4 was the last cloud-init release that supported Python 2. | |
| [22:20] <Odd_Bloke> So you probably don't need to run `tox -e py27` any longer, and instead should be running `tox -e py3`. | |
| [22:24] <johnsonshi> Odd_Bloke: Thanks for clearing this up! | |
| [22:41] <Odd_Bloke> johnsonshi: Happy to help! | |