I faced this very issue in the past. We solved the problem by adding the CA to the system bundle (as you stated). We also ran into problems where python would still not validate the CA. However, this turned out to be a permissions error with cacerts.txt[1] when httplib2 was installed through pip. Nowadays openstack uses requests which I don’t believe utilizes httplib2.
[1] https://code.google.com/p/httplib2/issues/detail?id=292&q=certificate On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > We're facing a bit of a frustration. In some of our environments, we're using > a self-signed certificate for our ssl termination (haproxy). We have our > various services pointing at the haproxy for service cross-talk, such as nova > to neutron or nova to glance or nova to cinder or neutron to nova or cinder > to glance or all the things to keystone. When using a self-signed > certificate, these services have trouble validating the cert when they > attempt to talk to each other. This problem can be solved in a few ways, such > as adding the CA to the system bundle (of your platform has such a thing), > adding the CA to the bundle python requests uses (because hilariously it > doesn't always use the system bundle), or the more direct way of telling > nova, neutron, et al the direct path to the CA file. > > This last choice is the way we went forward, more explicit, and didn't depend > on knowledge if python-requests was using its own bundle or the operating > system's bundle. To configure this there are a few places that need to be > touched. > > nova.conf: > [keystone_authtoken] > cafile = <path> > > [neutron] > ca_certificates_file = <path> > > [cinder] > ca_certificates_file = <path> > > (nothing for glance hilariously) > > > neutron.conf > [DEFAULT] > > nova_ca_certificates_file = <path> > > [keystone_authtoken] > cafile = <path> > > glance-api.conf and glance-registry.conf > [keystone_authtoken] > cafile = <path> > > cinder.conf > [DEFAULT] > glance_ca_certificates_file = <path> > > [keystone_authtoken] > cafile = <path> > > heat.conf > [clients] > ca_file = <path> > > [clients_<whatever>] > ca_file = <path> > > > As you can see, there are a lot of places where one would have to define the > path, and the frustrating part is that the config name and section varies > across the services. Does anybody think this is a good thing? Can anybody > think of a good way forward to come to some sort of agreement on config > names? It does seem like heat is a winner here, it has a default that can be > defined for all clients, and then each client could potentially point to a > different path, but every config entry is named the same. Can we do that > across all the other services? > > I chatted a bit on twitter last night with some nova folks, they suggested > starting a thread here on ops list and potentially turning it into a hallway > session or real session at the Vancouver design summit (which operators are > officially part of). > > - jlk > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > (mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org) > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
