From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Cutler Subject: Re: How are you dealing with hammer -> jewel upgrades? Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:59 +0200 Message-ID: <573273A7.3040902@suse.cz> References: <5731FE60.1090704@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44735 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752174AbcEJXuD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 19:50:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ken Dreyer Cc: Ceph Development On 05/10/2016 07:13 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I was thinking about handling it in the OSD directly, particularly > since it already has the UID from --setuid. > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15733 Thanks, Ken, for reminding me of that tracker issue! I would rather implement the recursive ownership change for filestore-backed OSDs (assuming it's not a totally insane thing to be doing) in ceph-disk than in the OSD itself, for the following reasons. ceph-disk already contains heuristics for determining the user/group to pass to ceph-osd [1] and "--setuser ceph --setgroup ceph" is hardcoded when starting ceph-osd via the systemd service [2]. If someone is passing a user/group other than "ceph" to the OSD via --setuser/--setgroup, they will be doing the same with ceph-disk (which also takes --setuser/--setgroup). Alternatively they will not be using ceph-disk at all. Right? Nathan [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py#L951 [2] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/systemd/ceph-osd%40.service#L12