Skip to content
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

Creating a Loadbalancer with the admin tenant without a explicit tenant_id failing community BVT test #457

Open
jgruber opened this issue Feb 27, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@jgruber
Copy link
Contributor

jgruber commented Feb 27, 2017

Agent Version

9.2.0

Operating System

RHEL 7.3

OpenStack Release

Mitaka

Bug Severity

Severity: 5

Description

According to community BVT

  neutron_lbaas.tests.tempest.v2.api.test_load_balancers_admin.LoadBalancersTestJSON.test_create_load_balancer_missing_tenant_id_field_for_admin

when a loadbalacner is created by the admin tenant and no tenant_id is explicitly specified in the loadbalancer create call, the subnet_id should be interrogated and the tenant for the neutron subnet should be used for the loadblancer.

Deployment

Run
neutron_lbaas.tests.tempest.v2.api.test_load_balancers_admin.LoadBalancersTestJSON.test_create_load_balancer_missing_tenant_id_field_for_admin

Errors in the /var/log/neutron/server.log on the controller:

  2017-02-27 15:22:32.195 32234 ERROR f5lbaasdriver.v2.bigip.service_builder [req-4dbd4d41-fe4f-4b27-89a6-cedacee7e680 93d38cf9fdcf4509945aad474b286f40 47303b67b68746c7812dae8a1adc494f - - -] Creating a loadbalancer 4840516d-31f3-4c88-830f-15a68d5c7815 for tenant 47303b67b68746c7812dae8a1adc494f on a  non-shared network baee7507-f604-4894-9c81-356597aefb69 owned by cc49c93a364f49509ccfc02f3a081a20
  2017-02-27 15:22:32.197 32234 ERROR f5lbaasdriver.v2.bigip.driver_v2 [req-4dbd4d41-fe4f-4b27-89a6-cedacee7e680 93d38cf9fdcf4509945aad474b286f40 47303b67b68746c7812dae8a1adc494f - - -] Exception: loadbalancer create: Tenant Id of network and loadbalancer mismatched
@jgruber jgruber added the bug label Feb 27, 2017
@jgruber jgruber changed the title Creating a Loadbalancer with the admin tenant without a explicit tenant_id should create the loadbalacner in the tenant of the specified subnet_id Creating a Loadbalancer with the admin tenant without a explicit tenant_id failing community BVT test Feb 28, 2017
@jgruber
Copy link
Contributor Author

jgruber commented Feb 28, 2017

Just a note.. I'm not sure the BVT test should work.

The use case to me that is important is the admin tenant can create a loadbalancer for a non-admin tenant with the loadbalancing subnet_id on a non-shared network owned by admin. This is the use case for letting a third party orchestration create a loadbalancer for a non-admin tenant with a loadbalancer on a public facing network.

@richbrowne
Copy link
Contributor

This scenario results in a loadbalancer in 'ERROR' state using the Octavia loadbalancer. Our driver should pass when the admin user creates a loadbalancer for a particular tenant provided the --tenant-id parameter matches the subnet ID.

@richbrowne
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, this does work on the Octavia driver. I was hitting an error in the number of loadbalancers I could create. On Octavia, I see a loadbalancer with the tenant id of the admin and a subnet tenant id of the tenant.

We need to be able to check that the user that is creating the loadbalancer is 'admin' or has admin privileges. I am not sure how the driver does this.

@mattgreene mattgreene added P3 and removed P2 labels Mar 2, 2017
@szakeri
Copy link
Contributor

szakeri commented May 15, 2017

@dflanigan @mattgreene Could you take a look this issue? If this is supported, then I can work on it next sprint, otherwise can we close it?

@mattgreene
Copy link
Contributor

This is a known limitation with the F5 product and will be addressed in a future release. Exclude from automated regression.

@mattgreene mattgreene removed their assignment May 26, 2017
pjbreaux pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 26, 2017
handle issues for #459, #457 by excluding tests
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants