Thanks for starting this thread Jesse. I agree that heat looks like a good model for other projects to model themselves on here.
Can anyone think of a use case for having a per client / driver CA file? I can't, but perhaps I'm missing something. Michael On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jesse Keating <j...@bluebox.net> 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 > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
