Bug 2122521

Summary:	Disable and block double registration of the same storage IP
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation	Reporter:	Alon Firestein <alon.firestein>
Component:	management-console	Assignee:	Alon Firestein <alon.firestein>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Vishakha Kathole <vkathole>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	unspecified	CC:	badhikar, hnallurv, jefbrown, muagarwa, nberry, nthomas, odf-bz-bot, skatiyar, tjeyasin, vbadrina
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	ODF 4.14.0
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	4.14.0-60	Doc Type:	No Doc Update
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-11-08 18:49:51 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	2244409

Description Alon Firestein 2022-08-30 08:22:40 UTC

Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log
snippests):
Currently it is possible to create and register the same storage with the same IP more than once on ODF, which users should probably be blocked from doing so and the ability to do it should be disabled.

Version of all relevant components (if applicable):


Does this issue impact your ability to continue to work with the product
(please explain in detail what is the user impact)?
This issue does not prevent the user from creating and registering the same storage even if it already exists.

Is there any workaround available to the best of your knowledge?
I believe the best course of action is to block and alert the user when attempting to create and register a storage that already exists on ODF with the same IP address.

Rate from 1 - 5 the complexity of the scenario you performed that caused this
bug (1 - very simple, 5 - very complex)?
1

Can this issue reproducible?
Yes

Can this issue reproduce from the UI?
Yes

If this is a regression, please provide more details to justify this:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.Create StorageSystem on ODF UI with storage IP x.x.x.x
2.Create the same StorageSystem on ODF UI, with also storage IP x.x.x.x


Actual results:
See that it's created again

Expected results:
User should be prevented from creating and registering it again.

Additional info:

Comment 2 Nitin Goyal 2022-08-30 08:30:45 UTC

Moving it to console

Comment 3 Alon Firestein 2022-08-31 07:03:53 UTC

Just to clarify, I'm specifically talking about IBM StorageSystem, but this could also be a general ODF issue.

Comment 4 Alon Firestein 2022-09-25 06:33:09 UTC

Any updates by any chance?

Comment 5 Alon Firestein 2022-10-23 09:48:07 UTC

Hi @nthomas , @vbadrina

Could we please get an update on the ticket as its been a couple months since opened

Thanks

Comment 6 Sanjal Katiyar 2022-10-26 07:13:12 UTC

(In reply to Alon Firestein from comment #5)
> Hi @nthomas , @vbadrina
> 
> Could we please get an update on the ticket as its been a couple months
> since opened
> 
> Thanks

Hi,
We are planning to introduce custom extensions in our odf-console repo, using which any new StorageSystem vendor can add their own UI/components to StorageSystem creation wizard at runtime.
This needs creation of few new custom extensions,testing them and some refactoring of our existing code as well (for now, we will restructure our repo and create a different package/directory for IBM StorageSystem and all IBM SS related UI will be served from there).
We are still having discussions around it, will surely add u guys as well if needed.

Thanks.

Comment 17 Alon Firestein 2023-03-23 09:20:50 UTC

Hi @badhikar 

We saw the changes that were made on the attached PR link.
Is it possible for a quick recap and explanation of the changes on your end in the PR as there seems that many things changed and not just for the IP duplication registration.
In addition, which version will be the first to support this change, 4.13?
And if there are any changes that might be required from our end, please let us know so that we will need to make the necessary adjustments.

Thanks again.

Comment 20 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-04-06 05:37:52 UTC

Hi @alon.firestein 
PR: https://github.com/red-hat-storage/odf-console/pull/676 is merged in downstream (4.13), I am assigning this BZ to you now, please feel free to contribute the fix. Also, in case of any concerns/doubt, please feel free to reach out to us.

Comment 21 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-04-11 06:38:58 UTC

I am moving it to 4.14 as there is not much time left for 4.13 release...

Comment 27 Harish NV Rao 2023-09-29 06:23:03 UTC

(In reply to Alon Firestein from comment #3)
> Just to clarify, I'm specifically talking about IBM StorageSystem, but this
> could also be a general ODF issue.

Sanjal, does this BZ require IBM StorageSystem to verify? If not, how to verify without it?

Comment 28 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-09-29 06:45:59 UTC

Hi,
Yes, it requires IBM FlashSystem StorageSystem creation from the UI, 2 StorageSystems in-fact using same IP address. We cannot verify this without that.

If needed, we might want to get in touch with alon.firestein (Alon Firestein) and bvered.com (Vered Berenstein) from the IBM team.

Comment 29 Harish NV Rao 2023-10-09 14:05:28 UTC

(In reply to Sanjal Katiyar from comment #28)
> Hi,
> Yes, it requires IBM FlashSystem StorageSystem creation from the UI, 2
> StorageSystems in-fact using same IP address. We cannot verify this without
> that.
> 
> If needed, we might want to get in touch with alon.firestein (Alon
> Firestein) and bvered.com (Vered Berenstein) from the IBM team.

Thanks Sanjal. We tried our best to get it verified on actual IBM setup but no luck. We plan to verify this fix based on regression testing. Any specific tests you suggest?

Comment 30 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-10-09 14:11:20 UTC

nothing from my side, regression testing sounds good to me for now.

Comment 31 Vishakha Kathole 2023-10-30 07:09:53 UTC

Marking it as verified based on the successful execution of StorageSystem and UI related regression test cases, confirming the absence of defects.

Comment 33 errata-xmlrpc 2023-11-08 18:49:51 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (Important: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation 4.14.0 security, enhancement & bug fix update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:6832

Comment 34 Red Hat Bugzilla 2024-03-08 04:25:11 UTC

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days