Skip to content

Ensure compliance with storage access groups when mounting disabled storage pools - #13990

Open
sureshanaparti wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:4.22from
shapeblue:enforce-compliance-with-storage-access-groups
Open

Ensure compliance with storage access groups when mounting disabled storage pools#13990
sureshanaparti wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:4.22from
shapeblue:enforce-compliance-with-storage-access-groups

Conversation

@sureshanaparti

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

The PR addresses the following issue:

During host connect process, management server chooses which storage pool to connect to, using storage pool scope (CLUSTER or ZONE) and storage access group (tags). In the scenario where configuration mount.disabled.storage.pool is ON, the behaviour is different/buggy.

  • Connect to storage pools in UP state which satisfy the storage access group filter.
  • Connect to all storage pools which are in DISABLED state - storage access group filter is not applied here.

The above edge case with the below changes are handled when the config mount.disabled.storage.pool is ON:

  • Logic for connecting to storage pools in UP state is unchanged.
  • Filter storage pools by Disabled State and Storage Access Groups before connecting.

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • Build/CI
  • Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Scenarios:

  1. mount.disabled.storage.pool is OFF:

    • Same behaviour as before. Nothing has been changed.
  2. mount.disabled.storage.pool is ON and storage access group of host is "group1":

    • The host would connect to all groups that it would have connected to if config mount.disabled.storage.pool was OFF. Additionally, the host would connect to all storage pools in Disabled state with the below filters:
      • Storage pools with empty storage access groups OR
      • Storage pools with "group1" storage access group.
  3. mount.disabled.storage.pool is ON and storage access group of host is empty:

    • The host would connect to all groups that it would have connected to if config mount.disabled.storage.pool was OFF. Additionally, the host would connect to all storage pools in Disabled state with the below filters:
      • Storage pools with empty storage access groups.

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

…torage pools

- connect to only storage pools with empty tags when access group is empty
@sureshanaparti sureshanaparti added this to the 4.22.2 milestone Aug 27, 2026
@sureshanaparti

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 36.84211% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 17.78%. Comparing base (7ea1dca) to head (15b53bf).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
.../storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java 15.78% 16 Missing ⚠️
...com/cloud/storage/listener/StoragePoolMonitor.java 66.66% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...rc/main/java/com/cloud/storage/StorageManager.java 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
...n/java/com/cloud/resource/ResourceManagerImpl.java 50.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.22   #13990      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     17.79%   17.78%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    15995    15989       -6     
============================================
  Files          5928     5928              
  Lines        534306   534328      +22     
  Branches      65383    65386       +3     
============================================
- Hits          95069    95033      -36     
- Misses       428467   428525      +58     
  Partials      10770    10770              
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 3.69% <ø> (ø)
unittests 18.87% <36.84%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18998

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants