New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rgw: fix handling RGWUserInfo::system in RGWHandler_REST_SWIFT. #12865

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 19, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rzarzynski
Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 10, 2017

Before this patch the flag was wrongly handled in the Swift API
implementation. In rare conditions this might result in setting
req_state::system_request.

This may happen only if both of those conditions are fulfilled:

  • RadosGW is running in a multi-site configuration (at least
    one user with the system flag turned on is present),
  • the rgw_swift_account_in_url configurable has been switched
    to true. The value is false by default and our documentation
    doesn't actually mention about the option.

The issue doesn't affect Jewel nor any previous release.

Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18476
Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Zarzynski rzarzynski@mirantis.com


CC: @yehudasa, @cbodley.

@rzarzynski rzarzynski added this to the kraken milestone Jan 10, 2017

@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 10, 2017

@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 16, 2017

The whole run failed because of an issue with package fetching. I'm fixing a typo in the commit message and will schedule a new run.

@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 16, 2017

The xenial-aarch64-basic gitbuilder has failed. The failure seems to be unrelated to the change. Rebasing to the current master.

rgw: fix handling RGWUserInfo::system in RGWHandler_REST_SWIFT.
Before this patch the flag was wrongly handled in the Swift API
implementation. In rare conditions this might result in setting
req_state::system_request.

This may happen only if both of those conditions are fulfilled:
 * RadosGW is running in a multi-site configuration (at least
   one user with the system flag turned on is present),
 * the "rgw_swift_account_in_url" configurable has been switched
   to true. The value is false by default and our documentation
   doesn't actually mention about the option.

The issue doesn't affect Jewel nor any previous release.

Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18476
Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Zarzynski <rzarzynski@mirantis.com>
@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 18, 2017

Due to troubles with Teuthology rebased to freshest master once again. Also scheduled a new run that looks promising: http://pulpito.ceph.com/rzarzynski-2017-01-18_20:08:32-rgw-wip-rgw-18476---basic-smithi/.

@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 18, 2017

@cbodley: the run almost (1 job left) finished with two, most likely unrelated, failures:

  • Valgrind is complaining about possible leak after ceph.mon.b decided to abort(),
  • qa/tasks/radosgw_admin.py thrown No summary info found for user: foo. However, the RadosGW's log indicates that the Swift API wasn't involved at all. Instead it shows that one S3 request failed with TooManyBuckets.
@rzarzynski

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

rzarzynski commented Jan 19, 2017

I've scheduled an additional run consisting only the two failed jobs: http://pulpito.ceph.com/rzarzynski-2017-01-19_11:57:01-rgw-wip-rgw-18476---basic-smithi/.

It's green, so I think we can continue with this PR. @cbodley, could you please take a look?

@cbodley cbodley merged commit 5db320c into master Jan 19, 2017

3 checks passed

Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodifed Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
default Build finished.
Details

@rzarzynski rzarzynski deleted the wip-rgw-18476 branch Jan 19, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment