| [00:29] <faa> hello, maybe someone has an example debian double network interface? | |
| === tds1 is now known as tds | |
| [01:21] <johnsonshi> rharper: As discussed previously, cloud-init's swap file module runs before the mount module. Cloud-init swap create also does not ensure that it has a path to the file, thereby throwing an exception. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bug/1869114 | |
| [01:21] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1869114 in cloud-init "swap module runs before mount module" [Undecided,New] | |
| === tds2 is now known as tds | |
| [08:44] <faa> help required, debian, may cloud-init write file (/etc/network/interfaces.d/enp0s0) previous network stage? datasource NoCloud iso | |
| [08:54] <andras-kovacs> imho by default it makes a config for your interface but what is the problem you are facing right now? | |
| [08:58] <faa> debian if interface not status link up, cloud-init ignor this interface (only write config) require restart network | |
| [09:04] <faa> log https://pastebin.com/gv6HgpjY first interface link up in image template | |
| [09:05] <andras-kovacs> enp0s1 | True | 127.0.0.1 that's strange, doesn't it? | |
| [09:05] <andras-kovacs> are you using NetworkManager? | |
| [09:07] <faa> ip changed, not standart debian 10 service, with wery old cloud-init | |
| [09:13] <andras-kovacs> sorry, I can't follow you | |
| [09:13] <andras-kovacs> if you have problems with the old network.service try to disble it and use NetworkManager instead (but I'm not 100% surre how it looks like in Debian nowadays) | |
| [09:15] <faa> it's minimal server install without external packages | |
| [09:24] <nrajasekhar> Hello | |
| [09:26] <nrajasekhar> I need some help with cloud-init usage on suse | |
| [09:26] <nrajasekhar> I want to change the password on first login after creating the aws instance | |
| [09:27] <nrajasekhar> How can I achieve it | |
| [09:28] <nrajasekhar> any help here is much appreciated | |
| [09:29] <andras-kovacs> do you want to change only or store it in a meta service somewhere? | |
| [09:30] <andras-kovacs> I would change it with a runcmd command maybe | |
| [09:31] <nrajasekhar> change and save it | |
| [09:31] <andras-kovacs> I think you can find a whole solution with google for that | |
| [09:32] <nrajasekhar> yes, I have tried all the available options. none of them worked for me | |
| [09:32] <nrajasekhar> I have referred the link that I am pasting here : https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux_atomic_host/7/html/installation_and_configuration_guide/setting_up_cloud_init | |
| [09:32] <andras-kovacs> I would call a simple shell script which would set up a new password ,encrypt it with my ssh pubkey and upload it to the meta data server | |
| [09:33] <andras-kovacs> first things first, are you trying to make it work with Atomic? | |
| [09:34] <nrajasekhar> sorry but I am not sure what that option mean from the link. | |
| [09:34] <andras-kovacs> which option? | |
| [09:35] <nrajasekhar> password: atomic | |
| [09:35] <andras-kovacs> this how-to while looks perfectly good for me I think it's a general one and not for AWS exactly | |
| [09:35] <nrajasekhar> oh ok | |
| [09:36] <nrajasekhar> from open build service, I have taken sample template and modifying to achieve it | |
| [09:36] <nrajasekhar> but none of the options worked | |
| [09:36] <andras-kovacs> I don't know that one | |
| [09:37] <nrajasekhar> could you please suggest any method or example from a link? | |
| [09:37] <andras-kovacs> but we should know that what do you want to achieve | |
| [09:37] <nrajasekhar> https://build.opensuse.org/ | |
| [09:37] <nrajasekhar> ok let me explain | |
| [09:38] <nrajasekhar> we generate Appliance in the OVA format | |
| [09:38] <andras-kovacs> why? | |
| [09:38] <andras-kovacs> I mean why in ova? do you use virtualbox or what? | |
| [09:39] <nrajasekhar> that's the way we deliver it to customers | |
| [09:40] <nrajasekhar> recently my team has decided to deploy our product on to AWS | |
| [09:40] <andras-kovacs> idk but ova ususally means virtualbox which also means IDE attached disks | |
| [09:40] <nrajasekhar> upon googling I found that OVA can be used to create AWS ami and an instance | |
| [09:41] <nrajasekhar> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vm-import/latest/userguide/vmimport-image-import.html | |
| [09:42] <nrajasekhar> I could able to successfully deploy OVA and create an instance out it and access my application | |
| [09:42] <andras-kovacs> than what's the problem? | |
| [09:42] <nrajasekhar> but in the OVA, we have hardcoded the root password | |
| [09:42] <andras-kovacs> do you want to randomize some passwords? | |
| === vrubiolo1 is now known as vrubiolo | |
| [09:43] <nrajasekhar> now we want to make sure on first login, the user changes the password and save it | |
| [09:44] <andras-kovacs> finally! :D | |
| [09:44] <andras-kovacs> so this is what you want here | |
| [09:44] <nrajasekhar> yes :-) | |
| [09:45] <andras-kovacs> you just need to expire the password of that account I think and that's all | |
| [09:45] <andras-kovacs> https://www.tecmint.com/force-user-to-change-password-next-login-in-linux/ | |
| [09:46] <andras-kovacs> you can put it in a runcmd command also but I would set it in the "ova" before I upload it to AWS. | |
| [09:46] <andras-kovacs> I mean you can do it without cloud-init also | |
| [09:47] <nrajasekhar> ok | |
| [09:47] <nrajasekhar> out of curiosity, Is there any option in clou-init? | |
| [09:48] <nrajasekhar> *cloud-int | |
| [09:48] <nrajasekhar> *cloud-init | |
| [09:50] <andras-kovacs> https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topics/modules.html#users-and-groups | |
| [09:51] <andras-kovacs> anything else you want there is runcmd for that | |
| [09:52] <nrajasekhar> sure I will give a try. | |
| [09:52] <nrajasekhar> @andras-kovacs: thanks for all the help and info. | |
| [09:55] <andras-kovacs> ywc! | |
| [13:36] <Goneri> the CI is broken because of https://github.com/gabrielfalcao/HTTPretty/issues/397 | |
| [13:36] <Goneri> a 1.0.2 release has just been pushed. | |
| [13:37] <Odd_Bloke> nrajasekhar: You should consider whether having a password in a cloud environment is appropriate at all, but https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topics/modules.html#set-passwords will allow you to set passwords and by default they should require resetting on first login. | |
| [13:38] <Odd_Bloke> Goneri: I've just restarted the CI for your PR. Assuming that new version has been released, we should pick it up automatically. | |
| [13:38] <Odd_Bloke> andras-kovacs: (Thanks for helping out!) | |
| [13:39] <Goneri> thanks | |
| [13:40] <Odd_Bloke> And yep, it's got past the point it failed before. | |
| [13:52] <Goneri> Odd_Bloke, once this patch is merged, I will clean up cloudinit/sources/DataSourceNoCloud.py to remove the OS specific code we use to build devlist. | |
| [13:52] <Goneri> it should be in cloudinit/util.py | |
| [13:52] <Odd_Bloke> OK, nice! | |
| [13:52] <Goneri> and the find_devs() method should be in cloudinit/distros/ | |
| [13:53] <Goneri> since it's OS (and distro) specific | |
| === hjensas_ is now known as hjensas | |
| [14:26] <eggbean> Is there a vs code extension for #cloud-config? | |
| [14:27] <eggbean> Can't find anything | |
| [14:30] <andras-kovacs> it's not so complex IMHO | |
| [14:31] <andras-kovacs> # vim:syntax=yaml | |
| [14:31] <andras-kovacs> so just use yaml syntax and that's all | |
| [14:36] <eggbean> andras-kovacs: yeh okay. It's just that as I am new to it, autocomplete would have been useful to remind me of the exact keys | |
| [14:37] <andras-kovacs> I see :D | |
| [14:44] <amansi26> Hi, I have a doubt . I am using ConfigDrive as datasource and deployig a DHCP network. netcfg.get('config') in stages.py is coming to None. Distro is rhel and cloud init version is 19.1. | |
| [14:44] <amansi26> can someone lease guide me | |
| [14:44] <amansi26> please* | |
| [14:50] <andras-kovacs> wait a minute | |
| [14:50] <andras-kovacs> so it's rhel 8, right? | |
| [14:51] <andras-kovacs> in 7 the latest is 18.5 as I remember | |
| [14:52] <amansi26> it is rhel 7.7 | |
| [14:59] <andras-kovacs> oh wow | |
| [15:02] <amansi26> It is just failing for DHCP network. Static is working fine | |
| [15:02] <andras-kovacs> I'm not sure I understand why do you need to "pull" the DHCP config | |
| [15:03] <andras-kovacs> the DHCP server doesn't supply the necessary data? | |
| [15:04] <andras-kovacs> I mean I don't get the deploy part. Cloud-init makes a dhcp config for your interface and that should work. | |
| [15:04] <amansi26> Didn't get your last message | |
| [16:22] <Odd_Bloke> eggbean: I'm not aware of any such extension. There is JSON Schema for some of the cloud config modules, you might be able to do something with that? | |
| [17:09] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: You still have requested changes on https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/147, which I believe are all addressed. Could you either dismiss your review or do enough to give it an Approve? | |
| [17:15] <rharper> lemme look | |
| [17:15] <robjo> rharper: what file contains the more or less complete jsonschema for network and routing configuration? | |
| [17:15] <rharper> we've no schema written for network config v1; netplan (v2) I think has schema in source; | |
| [17:16] <robjo> OK, I guess I have to keep winging it :( | |
| [17:19] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: maybe I'm missing something, but on conversation page, I see my requested changes/comments, there's a 'view changes' button, which almost always ends up on a 'whoops can't find your changes' page ... what is that supposed to do? | |
| [18:15] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: approved (but needs rebase) https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/278/files | |
| [18:37] <Goneri> rharper, is there anything else I need to adjust? https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/147 | |
| === tds2 is now known as tds | |
| [18:49] <rharper> Goneri: thanks, I'm re-reviewing | |
| [18:55] <bwatson> Anyone have any luck bootstrapping a RHEL 8.1 or CentOS 8 generic cloud image (kvm) via cloud-init on VMWare? I add the *.iso as a virtual CD-ROM to the machine and power it on, but the only thing I see on screen is: Probing EDD (edd=off to disable)... ok | |
| [18:56] <bwatson> or is EL8 just not ready for this yet? I've been using this technique with EL 6/7 and Ubuntu 16/18 for some time now | |
| [19:02] <Goneri> rharper, thanks. I'm testing a fix. | |
| [19:24] <Goneri> rharper, https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/147/commits/02694900dd656b94ed056a03952eeab276aa2694 | |
| [19:24] <Goneri> rharper, I don't default on DHCP anymore. | |
| === tds8 is now known as tds | |
| [19:28] <rharper> Goneri: ok, dhcp on just one interface then ? | |
| [19:29] <rharper> dhcp_interfaces() does this ever return more than one ? | |
| [19:29] <Goneri> it depends on the metadata | |
| [19:30] <Goneri> so yes you can get more than one, in this case the defaul route will be indeed important | |
| [19:30] <Goneri> but it's not different to what we do we FreeBSD or NetBSD. | |
| [19:31] <Goneri> I would say, we cannot fix the network environment for the user. | |
| [19:32] <rharper> well, they don't have control over it in a cloud | |
| [19:33] <rharper> in Azure, for example, you have to DHCP on primary nic, and secondary nics can also DHCP but the route can break the primary nic configuration; so we ensure the network-config we write to the OS has a metric value that's lower priority for non-primary nics | |
| [19:34] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: My guess is that a force-push means that the commits references are no longer present. | |
| [19:35] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: yeah; I was thinking that; seems like if a force push happens the message should go away since its not a great experience; | |
| [19:35] <Goneri> rharper, if you've got two DHCP network without a default route, bad things will happen. | |
| [19:35] <rharper> no, they * both* have a default route | |
| [19:35] <Goneri> but it's already the case with the other BSD. I'm not sure how I can fix that. | |
| [19:35] <rharper> they may even point to the same router; but the question out of which interface does the packet egress | |
| [19:35] <rharper> on Azure for example, packets destined for the internet may *only* come from eth0; | |
| [19:35] <rharper> they are dropped otherwise | |
| [19:35] <rharper> so the routing table entries matter | |
| [19:36] <rharper> multi-nic DHCP needs help since the platform network metadata is imprecise (they just say DHCP on all of the nics) | |
| [19:36] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: Thanks for the review! | |
| [19:36] <rharper> cloud-init helps out here by ensuring that we don't clobber the default route for the primary interface | |
| [19:36] <rharper> on AWS, this can happen as well and on OpenStack | |
| [19:37] <rharper> I would prefer to *skip* multi-nic DHCP until we know that we won't break primary nic networking configuration | |
| [19:37] <Goneri> rharper, so basically,: if NIC is not primary and default_route_exists, then ignore default route | |
| [19:38] <rharper> yes; the preference is to assign a route metric of lower priority for all nics but primary | |
| [19:38] <rharper> or you can use route-tables | |
| [19:38] <Goneri> ok FreeBSD and NetBSD need to be adjusted too then. | |
| [19:39] <Goneri> Could we put that aside for now and merge the current patch. I will prepare a set-up to test the setup that you describe. | |
| [19:39] <Goneri> and come with a new patch that address this problem. | |
| [19:39] <rharper> Goneri: I think that's reasonable since it's a general fix for all BSD networking | |
| [19:39] <Goneri> I would also like to push a fix to clean up the devlist mess. | |
| [19:40] <rharper> https://github.com/aws/ec2-net-utils/blob/master/ec2net-functions | |
| [19:40] <rharper> this is linux specific, but it may be of help to understand how it's solved on Ec2 | |
| [19:41] <Goneri> Yes, understood. | |
| [19:42] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: I'm +1 on 147 now, with the note that Goneri will follow up to handle multi-nic DHCP (and other cleanups) | |
| [19:42] <Odd_Bloke> Nice, thanks! | |
| [20:08] <Odd_Bloke> Goneri: #147 landed! \o/ | |
| [20:08] <Goneri> ahah! | |
| [20:08] <Goneri> I will refresh https://bsd-cloud-image.org/ later today. | |
| [20:22] <Goneri> thanks meena Odd_Bloke and rharper for the review. | |
| [20:24] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: sorry about missing the build recipe failures a few days ago, I had mistakenly thought it was just focal. but as you pointed out, xenial has been failing for a wihle. | |
| [20:24] <blackboxsw> so I stopped at fixing focal as I saw bionic eoan were fine. I forgot to look through xenial | |
| [20:24] <blackboxsw> working that now | |
| [20:24] <blackboxsw> should be minor | |
| [20:31] <rharper> blackboxsw: that was me poking you on that ... I'm subscribed to the recipe failures | |
| [20:31] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: I poked him in privmsg because I was going to take a look if he wasn't already. | |
| [20:32] <rharper> ah | |
| [20:32] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: thanks! =) | |
| [20:32] <blackboxsw> rharper/Odd_Bloke right. I fixed focal a few days ago, didn't realize that xenial patch was broken too | |
| [20:32] <blackboxsw> so that did fall through the cracks until Odd_Bloke pinging me pvt | |
| [20:32] <Odd_Bloke> I'm not sure why I'm not getting those emails TBH. | |
| [20:32] <blackboxsw> privately | |
| [20:32] <Odd_Bloke> Maybe I'm filtering them, let me check. | |
| [20:50] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: rharper so, we use SRU_BLOCKER/RELEASE_BLOCKER comment in cloud-init to give us a heads up about something that needs attention during the next SRU or RELEASE. I have to quilt refresh a number of patches at the moment on xenial, and I was wondering if either of you have a suggestion on a common comment prefix we can also use for resolved SRU/RELEASE blocker differences. | |
| [20:51] <blackboxsw> a common prefix would allow us to easily see in an ubuntu series if there are things patches that will remind us of differing behavior on other series | |
| [20:52] <blackboxsw> since I have to refesh multiple debian/patches now it'd be nice to start instrumenting that "SRU_RESOLVED" maybe? | |
| [20:52] <blackboxsw> SRU_FIX? | |
| [20:53] * blackboxsw goes with SRU_FIX unless there are firm objections | |
| [20:58] <blackboxsw> put up https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/284 | |
| [20:58] <blackboxsw> for review | |
| [20:59] <blackboxsw> I'm thinking we probably should also queue bionic and eoan with new-upstream-snapshot --skip-release just so we'll have a common changeset to look at once we actually do perform an SRU to those series in the future | |
| [20:59] <blackboxsw> what do you folks think? do this for bionic and eoan as well so daily recipes are building the same 'snapshots' | |
| [20:59] <blackboxsw> even though build recipes aren't failing there | |
| [21:00] * blackboxsw queues those for review pending discussion | |
| [21:00] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: The daily recipes merge master in, so they'd be building the same snapshot regardless, I think? | |
| [21:00] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: | |
| [21:00] * Odd_Bloke nods sagely in response. | |
| [21:00] <blackboxsw> I think so right. so functionally may not make a difference on finished deb. | |
| [21:00] <blackboxsw> hah | |
| [21:01] <blackboxsw> though it'll make for vastly different xenial vs bionic/eoan on our next SRU | |
| [21:01] <Odd_Bloke> Well, we'll still merge in master at that point to each branch. | |
| [21:01] <blackboxsw> because current fixed xenial will have snapshotted up until today | |
| [21:01] <blackboxsw> yes bionic/eoan won't do that until we actually try to perform the next SRU | |
| [21:01] <Odd_Bloke> We aren't releasing these branches anywhere, we're essentially just fixing merge conflicts. | |
| [21:02] <blackboxsw> not releasing, but at SRU time, we will review a PR like 284 for xenial and it'll be way different from the PR for bionic/eoan | |
| [21:02] <blackboxsw> bionic/eoan will be a lot bigger and will include what we will be pushing the upstream/ubuntu/xenial today | |
| [21:03] <Odd_Bloke> We don't really review those PR diffs, though, we basically just confirm that the uploader hasn't fat-fingered using the tooling. | |
| [21:03] <rharper> blackboxsw: I think that's fine, we run the same tools on each branch | |
| [21:03] <Odd_Bloke> (i.e. I'm not reading through that xenial diff, I'm reviewing it by performing the actions locally.) | |
| [21:03] <rharper> so they can vary, but my output should match the PR | |
| [21:03] <rharper> Odd_Bloke: exactly | |
| [21:04] <rharper> I end up diffing my local branch against the PR | |
| [21:04] <rharper> and the delta should be timestamps and names | |
| [21:04] <blackboxsw> ahh roger | |
| [21:04] <blackboxsw> in that case it doesn't matter, for future of bionic/eoan | |
| [21:05] <blackboxsw> for this xenial branch you'll see my diffs as well for the manual quilt refresh changes as I changed the patches a bit with the SRU_FIX prefix | |
| [21:05] <blackboxsw> I went through https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/uss-tableflip/blob/master/doc/ubuntu_release_process.md#when-the-daily-recipe-build-fails | |
| [21:20] <blackboxsw> rharper: are we ok with this response? https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/284#issuecomment-604692176 | |
| [21:20] <blackboxsw> also should I put up a doc PR against uss-tableflip suggesting the use of SRU_FIX in patch comments ? | |
| [21:20] <blackboxsw> for when we add new patches (like netplan eni priority in the near future) | |
| [21:33] <rharper> blackboxsw: it wasn;t clear to me if you added any strings or just ran the steps from the docs ? | |
| [21:33] <rharper> blackboxsw: I don't want to add any markers in the patches or code; I'm just not going to remember to look | |
| [21:33] <rharper> I just want to run the tools and compare branches | |
| [21:35] <blackboxsw> right rharper, but once https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/267 lands we need another patch and it'd be nice if that patch represented that it omitted content from ubuntu/bionic branch to retain original behavior | |
| [21:35] <blackboxsw> kindof like the existing requirements.txt patch comments that we aren't adding jsonschema deps to avoid changing behavior | |
| [21:36] <blackboxsw> except that comment and text currently is unstructured, so breadcrumbs are hard to find. | |
| [21:37] <blackboxsw> Also we need to have some structure/procedure to track in cloud-init source certain features that we don't want to accidentally release into stable releases. And that convention currently is loosely SRU_BLOCKER in comments and no uss-tableflip documentation that says, hey make sure you double check during next sru that you aren't leaking unintented behavior | |
| [21:37] <blackboxsw> *unintended behavior* | |
| [21:38] <Odd_Bloke> blackboxsw: I can find that requirements.txt comment by looking through d/patches, I don't need to grep for it. | |
| [21:39] <Odd_Bloke> Is it true of all the other modifications we make that they're in d/patches? | |
| [21:39] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: good point. so maybe no prefix required on patched files | |
| [21:39] <Odd_Bloke> If so, then I think that's a better catalogue of changes than any manually managed prefix is going to give us. | |
| [21:42] <rharper> blackboxsw: I suspect before adding the strings, we need a complete use-case and walk through what it will actually improve. I can see a use-case for documenting behavioral differences between releases ... | |
| [21:42] <rharper> but let's set out with that in-mind and design a tool/process with the goal in mind; | |
| [21:44] <blackboxsw> Odd_Bloke: it's not a whole set of patches as we directly have adapted cloudinit/settings.py and debian/cloud-init.templates per release to enable datasources after the release goes stable | |
| [21:45] <blackboxsw> and there may be others. but mostly debian/patches captures the majority of the functional differences in cloud-init source. not packaging diffs | |
| [21:47] <blackboxsw> rharper/Odd_Bloke: good points. so shall I leave the debian/patch comments untouched then. and just manually merge as best I can to avoid any other diff introduced by SRU_FIX prefix? | |
| [21:47] <blackboxsw> I have one approve at the moment | |
| [21:47] <blackboxsw> but can alter that approach to keep the debian/patch diff smaller | |
| [21:56] <Odd_Bloke> rharper: blackboxsw: If either of you are looking for some small reviews to do, I've opened 4 small PRs that cleanup some more Py2 support code I found. | |
| [21:58] <blackboxsw> Im all about the smalls | |
| [21:58] <blackboxsw> :) | |
| [22:05] <rharper> blackboxsw: I would prefer to leave them untouched; when you say "merge as best you can" what do you mean? | |
| [22:13] <blackboxsw> ok rharper sorry force pushed 284. without comment changing liberties | |
| [22:13] <blackboxsw> diff from yours should be smaller now | |
| [22:14] <blackboxsw> rharper: I meant manually merging the existing patch because quilt failed to update | |
| [22:15] <blackboxsw> nothing generally should be dropped, but it presented me with an opportunity I thought to standardize comments. But, I'm good not doing that. it's of limited use anyway | |
| [22:17] <blackboxsw> in manually merging a patch conflict, there really shouldn't be any changes unless upstream changed some subset of the exact lines of the patch file and there could be a possibility that the patch refresh author needs to make the appropriate manual decision on what functionally should remain after the patch (like if we have a variable renamed or something). So "merge as best you can" meant being smart about your | |
| [22:17] <blackboxsw> manual choice when resolving that quilt patch update | |
| [22:19] <blackboxsw> rharper: I forgot to ping you again earlier on the netplan proiritization branch https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/267 do you think it needs a cloud_test to install ifupdown on focal to confirm behavior? | |
| [22:20] <blackboxsw> or shall we just chalk that into a manual one-off SRU/release test | |
| [22:20] <blackboxsw> I thought at standup I had missed review comments from you, but I don't see anything new there. | |