16:30:58 #startmeeting fedora_coreos_meeting 16:30:58 Meeting started Wed Aug 22 16:30:58 2018 UTC. 16:30:58 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:30:58 The chair is dustymabe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:30:58 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:30:58 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_coreos_meeting' 16:31:01 #topic roll call 16:31:05 .hello2 16:31:06 slowrie: slowrie 'Stephen Lowrie' 16:31:09 .hello2 16:31:10 dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' 16:31:13 .hello2 16:31:14 bhavin192: bhavin192 'Bhavin Gandhi' 16:31:19 ,hello2 16:31:30 .hello smilner 16:31:31 ashcrow: smilner 'None' 16:31:32 .hello sinnykumari 16:31:33 .helo2 16:31:37 ksinny: sinnykumari 'Sinny Kumari' 16:31:39 .hello2 16:31:40 ajeddeloh: ajeddeloh 'Andrew Jeddeloh' 16:31:50 .hello2 16:31:51 mskarbek: mskarbek 'None' 16:32:06 .hello2 16:32:07 bgilbert__: Sorry, but you don't exist 16:32:12 .hello2 16:32:13 bgilbert: bgilbert 'Benjamin Gilbert' 16:32:14 .hello2 16:32:16 rubao: rubao 'rubao' 16:33:09 .hello akshay196 16:33:10 akshayg96: akshay196 'Akshay Gaikwad' 16:33:21 .hello rfairleyredhat 16:33:22 rfairley|afk: rfairleyredhat 'Robert Fairley' 16:33:37 .hello rfairleyredhat 16:33:38 rfairley: rfairleyredhat 'Robert Fairley' 16:33:39 .hello lucab 16:33:40 kaeso: lucab 'Luca Bruno' 16:33:44 #chair slowrie bhavin192 ajeddeloh ashcrow ksinny mskarbek bgilbert rubao akshayg96 rfairley kaeso 16:33:44 Current chairs: ajeddeloh akshayg96 ashcrow bgilbert bhavin192 dustymabe kaeso ksinny mskarbek rfairley rubao slowrie 16:33:58 whoa.. nice turnout today :) 16:34:01 welcome all! 16:34:06 .hello2 16:34:07 jlebon: jlebon 'None' 16:34:08 #chair jlebon 16:34:08 Current chairs: ajeddeloh akshayg96 ashcrow bgilbert bhavin192 dustymabe jlebon kaeso ksinny mskarbek rfairley rubao slowrie 16:34:24 ("None" seems to be a very common name) 16:34:37 .hello2 16:34:38 lorbus: lorbus 'Christian Glombek' 16:35:03 #chair lorbus 16:35:03 Current chairs: ajeddeloh akshayg96 ashcrow bgilbert bhavin192 dustymabe jlebon kaeso ksinny lorbus mskarbek rfairley rubao slowrie 16:35:18 ok i'll go over news real quick 16:35:26 #topic news 16:35:52 We had a few members talk at flock and devconf.us and devconf.in even over the last few weeks 16:36:03 the talks for flock aren't public yet, but I think the ones for devconf are 16:36:27 will try to post a link to videos when we have those all public 16:36:46 also ksinny hosted the first APAC fedora coreos meeting 16:37:00 we had a nice turnout, 10+ people. thanks ksinny! 16:37:08 ksinny++ 16:37:23 ksinny++ 16:37:26 anyone with any other news they'd like to share ? 16:37:30 ksinny++ 16:37:30 ajeddeloh: Karma for sinnykumari changed to 19 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:37:31 for devconf.us are public, i didn't see any recordings frOm devconf.in 16:37:48 ksinny: do you know if devconf.in talks were recorded ? 16:37:52 It was nice too have good turnout in first APAC meeting :) 16:38:04 ksinny++ 16:38:04 rubao: Karma for sinnykumari changed to 20 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:38:06 dustymabe: I think it was recorded 16:38:21 I will share the link when I have them 16:38:29 +1 - will try to share them all with links 16:38:46 ok moving on to previous meeting action items 16:38:53 #topic previous meeting action items 16:39:02 * ajeddeloh to PR rolling design doc for comment 16:39:04 * sanja to create docs repo this week 16:39:06 * strigazi to file ticket for system containers discussion 16:39:08 * ajeddeloh to file ticket regarding ignition and spec versions 16:40:15 #info sanja created docs stencil repo this week.. more info coming on that soon 16:40:27 * ajeddeloh forgot about the spec versions one. Looks like I never added it to my todo, doing that now 16:40:42 do we have strigazi around ? want to update us on your AI ? 16:40:50 ajeddeloh: ok.. re-actioning 16:40:56 #action ajeddeloh to file ticket regarding ignition and spec versions 16:41:42 i'll re-action the item from strigazi.. i don't see a ticket he made for that 16:41:50 #action strigazi to file ticket for system containers discussion 16:42:30 ajeddeloh: want to update us on that 1st action item you had? 16:42:40 hint https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/pull/27 :) 16:43:01 There's a PR up 16:43:26 #info ajeddeloh opened PR for rolling design doc https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/pull/27 16:43:31 I accidently deleted the first one fat-fingering `git push -f` as `git push -d` 16:43:47 boo :( 16:44:07 ok moving on to meeting tickets 16:44:21 #topic Firewall Management 16:44:24 But yeah, if anyone has comments, wants to LGTM, etc, that'dbe useful 16:44:27 #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/26 16:45:08 mskarbek: I think you started that ^ 16:46:10 * dustymabe assumes he is typing :) 16:46:20 yes, but I don't have any particular opinion for now. I was just asking what is considered as a solution for FCOS 16:46:39 +1 16:46:42 ack 16:46:44 so discussion ensues 16:46:54 I think we very briefly touched on that 16:47:04 regarding firewalld and python 16:47:32 yep.. anyone want to do a recap? 16:47:33 and as there won't be python, then firewalld is difficult 16:47:58 indeed. do we have any thoughts on the "switch to nftables" ? 16:48:05 and we were looking into kubernetes/openshift and we didn't see any hard-req on firewalld 16:48:20 that's for the firewalld side 16:48:27 for the iptables/nftables side 16:48:46 I know that iptables (userland) has a nftables backend 16:48:54 * ajeddeloh isn't too knowledgeable about these things, but nftables succeeds iptables, yes? 16:49:07 ajeddeloh: yeah, i think. that's about as much as I know about it though 16:49:27 so if iptables-save/restore doesn't break on that, we can keep using those 16:49:30 should probably support nftables then, probably iptables since so many people use it 16:50:09 dustymabe, ajeddeloh: yes, but there are both userspace and kernelspace things to consider 16:50:17 so what kaeso is saying is that the iptables userland supports nftables backend so we might be able to just continue using iptables 16:50:42 but can one use iptables with nftables + direct nftables configuration? 16:51:00 * misc test 16:51:06 i personally like firewalld, though it can be overcomplicated (with zones and such) 16:51:12 basically, do we have to choose between the two, or can we support both? 16:51:40 jlebon: on the kernel side or on the userspace? 16:51:49 userspace 16:51:50 so, iptables-save on a nftables firewall return nothing 16:51:50 both I guess 16:52:06 another crazy idea.. if the firewalld team were itching for a rewrite in a compiled language, would we prefer that as a solution ? 16:52:36 that's a big if 16:52:50 dustymabe: some kind of containerized/portable/system service would also be ok, I think 16:52:53 of course, but it's good to explore 16:53:11 does firewalld sit on top of ip/nftables 16:53:21 *system-container 16:53:25 kaeso: seems heavyweight 16:53:27 firewalld sit on top of netfilter 16:53:52 I do think we should support ip/nftables regardless of firewalld 16:54:06 mskarbek: in short.. thank you for bringing this up. this is obviously a topic that needs discussion :) 16:54:38 nftables provides xtables - iptables compatibility, based on presentation from the last netdevconf they are working on missing docs in that area 16:54:48 ajeddeloh: as much as I like nftables, I suspect people might not be familliar enough with it. I do have nftables in prod and I still wonder how to dump the rules :) 16:55:21 nf/iptables basically just expose the kernel interface, yes? 16:55:28 (could be very wrong about that 16:55:28 i think firewalld essentially is an abstraction layer on top so you probably don't care what the underlying tech is 16:55:29 and firewalld provides a API, which is likely much easier and stable for developpers 16:55:49 ajeddeloh: not really 16:56:00 * ajeddeloh is very wrong about it 16:56:12 ajeddeloh: don't worry.. /me learning too 16:56:47 I think the question is more "who will change the firewall" 16:56:52 so I think a summary is that this clearly needs investigation 16:57:01 ajeddeloh: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Netfilter-components.svg 16:57:23 misc: ideally you configure the firewall on system first boot and don't touch it after that 16:57:24 as a general guiding rule though I like shipping the "simplest" (read: from an implementation standpoint, not user) tools (again independent of if we _also_ ship firewalld in some form) 16:57:25 like, end users, integrators, and if so, how, trought kubernetes/docker ? 16:57:47 dustymabe: yeah, but docker do firewall magic, and so does kubernetes (or did) 16:57:52 dustymabe: I think we can keep adding datapoints to that ticket and revisit in some time 16:57:59 nftables is combining and replacing iptables, ip6tables, ebttables and arptables 16:58:12 long live nftables 16:58:16 haha 16:58:25 misc: I personally like to keep us in the scope of first-boot/immutable rules setup 16:58:50 ok summary we definitely need to investigate this more and come up with a recommendation for the group 16:58:54 misc: and leave runtime changes to higher levels, as per users choices 16:58:55 anybody opposed to that ^^ 16:58:56 kaeso++ 16:58:57 ajeddeloh: Karma for lucab changed to 5 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:58:57 dustymabe: not necessarily, ebpf is already waiting to replace iptables and nftables :D 16:59:11 mskarbek: :) 16:59:25 kaeso: well, sure, but if runtime change requires iptables, we will not do boot time on nftables :/ 17:00:06 misc: yes, that requires investigation at the compat/interop layer 17:00:46 +1 ok I'll try to summarize and add info to the ticket 17:00:49 thanks mskarbek 17:01:28 anybody opposed to moving on to the next ticket? 17:02:07 #topic arm64 / aarch64 support for Fedora CoreOS 17:02:11 #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/13 17:02:39 do we have geoff or ed-packet ? 17:02:50 i keep wondering if this card needs to brought up every meeting or not ? 17:03:04 i feel like we've mostly quelled concerns, but could be wrong 17:04:23 * dustymabe thinks we can move on 17:04:25 dustymabe: I think so, just let's keep the ticket one so we remember the infra offer when we start setting up the pipeline 17:04:33 s/one/open/ 17:04:38 kaeso: yeah. so remove meeting tag? 17:04:48 yup 17:05:01 +1 will do 17:05:23 dustymabe: Just saw comment in ticket https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/13#issuecomment-411151165 . Should we request the hardware? 17:05:23 #topic open floor 17:05:34 ksinny: which comment? 17:06:06 ahh the comment about requesting hardware ? 17:06:09 dustymabe: comment from vielmetti 17:06:11 yeah 17:06:19 got ya.. cool want to follow up on that? 17:06:45 yeah, I can 17:06:55 ok now that we are in open floor 17:07:05 i know we had quite a discussion in our network design ticket 17:07:24 ajeddeloh: could we get a TL;DR from that ticket ? 17:07:42 #link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/24 17:08:10 Uh, can I say "no" 17:08:18 haha sure 17:08:23 Like, there's a lot there 17:08:31 and we haven't reached a conclusion 17:08:32 I can try 17:08:41 go for t 17:09:21 basically "we've got a lot of comments from network manager team and we're trying to work with them to see if NM+nmstate can fit the needs of FCOS, in the same networkd fit the needs for CL" 17:09:40 does that seem reasonable? 17:09:42 yeah 17:09:55 short and sweet :) 17:10:15 couple things to add (high level) 17:10:17 cool, as you said there's a lot there and if everyone wasn't reading everything they might be interested but without dropping 30 minutes of reading time :) 17:10:35 The first Container SIG IRC meeting is happening tomorrow at 15:00 UTC in #fedora-containers 17:10:51 lorbus: ++ 17:11:00 #info The first Container SIG IRC meeting is happening tomorrow at 15:00 UTC in #fedora-containers 17:11:27 brb.. jlebon can you take over 17:11:47 dustymabe: sure 17:11:48 we like networkd's config format a lot; it's flexible and clean. NM wants to improve in that area as well, become more networkd-like. nmstate does a great job of syncing state between the config and the actual device state. 17:12:13 networkd isn't as well maintained as either and nmstate would need to be rewritten in not-python 17:13:15 also: NM is currently the default in both Fedora and RHEL 17:14:14 man, that thread is massive now 17:14:58 anyone has any clarification questions about the NM vs networkd discussions? 17:15:38 alrighty, anything else anyone wants to bring up for open floor? 17:16:31 Thoughts on creating "experiment" issues. Like a todo of investigation 17:16:54 hmm, can you expand on that? 17:16:58 like a spike? 17:17:01 ajeddeloh: context (or your immediate usecase)? 17:17:05 an example would be "see if we can setup ostree between the Ignition disks and files stage" 17:17:50 jlebon: yeah, but lets not let the scrumminess get exposed externally :P 17:18:04 heh gotcha 17:18:23 experimental issues sound cool to me 17:18:52 I'd say go ahead and open one up and we can see how it goes 17:18:59 sgtm 17:19:03 ajeddeloh: only if we agree to have a failed/succeeded doc-summary at the end 17:19:23 kaeso: great idea 17:19:39 kaseo++ 17:19:49 kaeso++ 17:19:49 lorbus: Karma for lucab changed to 6 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:20:04 (and making sure to not conflate results with "we're definitely doing this") 17:20:34 sorry I had to run 17:20:40 indeed, it's more of a "lessons learned" 17:20:41 someone was knocking at the door 17:21:25 anything else? 17:21:31 jlebon: only one other thing 17:21:56 shoot 17:22:20 #info dustymabe posted a draft PRD to the mailing list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/coreos@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3O3ZLEU733VEHBXTMIVXSA6RUNIVEUZ3/ 17:22:27 we've already got some feedback 17:22:37 please check it out and see if you have anything to add!! 17:22:45 that's it from me 17:23:11 dustymabe: where's the feedback? 17:23:18 doesn't seem like there were any replies 17:23:29 jlebon: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/pull/28 17:23:40 gotcha 17:23:51 alrighty, closing this out in 3... 17:24:02 2... 17:24:07 1... 17:24:14 #endmeeting