Devel February 2018

devel@lists.kronosnet.org

4 participants
4 discussions

Re: stable1 backporting process
by wferi＠niif.hu 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

"Fabio M. Di Nitto" <fdinitto(a)redhat.com> writes: > there is a PR open to merge stable1-proposed that will keep running CI > on each cherry-pick backport for now, and we feel the time is ready to > cut 1.1, we will just merge that PR at once. So, this sounds like the point of stable1-proposed is to have CI, but I can't see why stable1 couldn't be set up the same way. What do I miss? "Fabio M. Di Nitto" <notifications(a)github.com> also writes: > On 2/19/2018 10:43 AM, wferi wrote: > >> I don't really understand the master/stable1/stable1-proposed >> distinction at the moment, because I can't see anything on master >> which isn't 1.1 material, so we could pretty much release 1.1 >> straight from master. > > https://lists.kronosnet.org/pipermail/devel/2018-January/000049.html > > you are right, at the moment master and stable1-* haven´t diverged yet > but they will in future . It's getting an interesting question nearing the 1.1 release. Basically, why complicate history by pretending 1.1 is being developed in parallel with something else? Surely, there'll be a time when some breaking change (not suitable for 1.x) will have already been merged into master and still the need arises to cut a 1.x+1 release. Then we could branch off stable1 from master right before the breaking change and start doing parallel development when we're forced to. Till then, I'd find it perfectly fine to tag new minor releases on the master branch. Is that an oversimplification? -- Regards, Feri

2 3

kronosnet v1.1 released
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 25 Feb '18

25 Feb '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 All, We are pleased to announce the general availability of kronosnet v1.1 kronosnet (or knet for short) is the new underlying network protocol for Linux HA components (corosync), that features ability to use multiple links between nodes, active/active and active/passive link failover policies, automatic link recovery, FIPS compliant encryption (nss and/or openssl), automatic PMTUd and in general better performances compared to the old network protocol. Highlights in this release: * Fix plugins loader by switching from RPATH to RUNPATH * Man pages are now automatically generated at build time * Better error reporting from crypto plugins * Fix and improve the whole build system * Add support for some older lz4 versions * Fix issue with UDP sockets that could cause knet to spin * Add new API call to run knet unprivileged Known issues in this release: * When configuring compression plugins, the compress_level checks are not always aligned with what the underlying library can really do. This has been discussed over the devel mailing list and will be fixed in libknet 1.2. Only compression advanced users might notice this problem. * Tarballs downloaded directly from github will fail to build (https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/issues/133) please use the official release tarballs or git clone. The source tarballs can be downloaded here: https://www.kronosnet.org/releases/ Upstream resources and contacts: https://kronosnet.org/ https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/ https://ci.kronosnet.org/ https://trello.com/kronosnet (TODO list and activities tracking) https://goo.gl/9ZvkLS (google shared drive with presentations and diagrams) IRC: #kronosnet on Freenode https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/users https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/devel https://lists.kronosnet.org/mailman/listinfo/commits Cheers, The knet developer team -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJakkMqAAoJEAgUGcMLQ3qJfEoQALFAOk+znEqv4ogrGeD22VeT OL0ihimnW+lW9RjTe04B0VFPonAKFPZ3NmQ9XngaX+XSyvm6NCujpz9LckPc30WZ MYwD5LJcmeHqHUNfmLTX0wuvkoairiKQNtak26e+6Bt7wfTZ8fzKF3eFKrfJQ8w7 AvBOL8WVzR4v6Jc21/X2IZN1Bn7y2mIJTfnDPwNxFxNi6mfOLkA+OAc9ivjQZADe XPl0sqzBaaRxg9DrI4XgQxkV1sdwQ6elpL/jd+jKiQ8CfX8zOr6FX7SXTpnbwbmS 2OMzWPCXYxSiJUKWGpJtzn9QkHNrTpDiP3mDQ6KCEEt3o/XXSfkFI/bTuvTtuc/n R+ki/KhT2FqU/ZmgDmFQmHn1r7r70c/8i8i2GC1+FVYN63rGlofCroY3KZjvFewY sYLQKXm4zCvR5BZnonpTz2Mf/ISTNzCuaDwxIJKXAO+ksuot8uU54uBiYf4mR/Uu FuSSaNmiLHYqmEjVHF7V8c7gA4az7gYSV77oNP/y6bECxSrVA0NmXAraYzoIwG01 WsPEobZ4UXRYWggTu16G+xP8EpUiyxDtaJsTy/Kgp5qMqY1aRr5s4u7A6k3/M+HH ZdFtr5V2dGlR8cqYbkVt4Uayw2UgAULTeNsTGTPgNl5woboKAkomTkWUnh2pAbey wbPF6bQBtMDasmaPideX =zqHY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Last call for PR before 1.1 release
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 23 Feb '18

23 Feb '18

All, as subject, I think 1.1 is ready to ship. I am planning to cut a release over the weekend unless anybody has any pending work that needs to merge right away. Cheers Fabio

3 8

compression plugin compress level validation
by Fabio M. Di Nitto 14 Feb '18

14 Feb '18

Hey guys, original discussion started here (for reference): https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/pull/128 int knet_handle_compress(knet_handle_t knet_h, struct knet_handle_compress_cfg *knet_handle_compress_cfg); Where knet_handle_compress_cfg contains int compress_level. As you can see from libknet.h and relative code, we try (too hard) to validate the values for compress_level. Feri had a proper concern about applying incorrect filtering and I agree that it is already becoming complex to maintain a matrix of valid values, per plugin, per plugin-version, and whatever combination. AFAIR all plugins accept an int value for compress_level so from that perspective it shouldn´t be too much of a problem (aka no API/ABI changes). Historically, the reason why I added the validation was lzo2, that presents a rather unusual compress configuration vs all other plugins (as you can see). I think Feri´s suggestion to drop the filter completely might be too much, instead, after thinking a bit, it might be perfectly reason to change the internals of val_level to try and compress a small buffer to test that the value is good. The val_level is used only at configuration time, so it´s not too expensive to compress one small data chunk for validation and it would remove the whole hardcoded filter of different compress_levels. For special plugins like lzo2, I think it´s important we improve the logging at configuration time to make sure users at least warned of supported values (as you can see each values map to a specific lzo2 API call to compress). wdyt? Fabio

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Devel February 2018