Bug 2350124 - cephadm trys to bind RGW daemon to all (::) interfaces when valid networks list is provided.
Summary: cephadm trys to bind RGW daemon to all (::) interfaces when valid networks li...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 2356355
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Ceph Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: Cephadm
Version: 5.3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
: 6.2
Assignee: Adam King
QA Contact: Mohit Bisht
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2233659 2246440
Blocks: 1997638 2160009 2236231 2254553
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-05 16:47 UTC by Francesco Pantano
Modified: 2025-04-01 11:43 UTC (History)
17 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 2246440
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-01 11:43:27 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHCEPH-10723 0 None None None 2025-03-05 16:48:41 UTC

Internal Links: 2344947

Description Francesco Pantano 2025-03-05 16:47:07 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #2246440 +++


The main issue is a problematic cephadm code path [1] where we try to verify all the IP addresses associated with a port during the RGW reconfiguration, while it should only look for specific networks.


[1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/v16.2.15/src/cephadm/cephadm#L1304

Comment 3 John Fulton 2025-03-14 13:06:28 UTC
Regarding the alertmanager issue, it seems that it is the same as with RGW. The spec contains the network list, but when alertmanager first comes up it looks like it is doing a check on *:9093. If it passes, then it binds to the network in the list.  But it will fail if opentack's haproxy is running on that port on a different network due to the initial check. The workaround is to stop openstack's haproxy to allow alertmanager to make its check and come up bound on the network, then start haproxy again.

Comment 4 John Fulton 2025-04-01 11:41:28 UTC
Regarding alertmanager: see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274719 and its clones
Regarding RGW: see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356355 and its clones

Lou had written:
> "something checking first for availability on 0.0.0.0:8080 as RGW is coming up before it actually binds to the network(s)"

We hope to address this in RHCSv5 via https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356354

Comment 5 John Fulton 2025-04-01 11:43:27 UTC
Adam King suggested we close this bug as a duplicate 2356355

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2356355 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.