[ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add wrapper scripts for *ctl commands

[Ryan Moats]

Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 10:27:55 AM:

> From: Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: ovs dev <dev at openvswitch.org>
> Date: 08/02/2016 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add wrapper scripts for *ctl commands
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "dev" <dev-bounces at openvswitch.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 08:34:08 AM:
>
> > From: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM at IBMUS
> > To: Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
> > Cc: ovs dev <dev at openvswitch.org>
> > Date: 08/02/2016 08:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add wrapper scripts for *ctl
commands
> > Sent by: "dev" <dev-bounces at openvswitch.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 07:11:38 AM:
> >
> > > From: Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM at IBMUS
> > > Cc: ovs dev <dev at openvswitch.org>
> > > Date: 08/02/2016 07:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add wrapper scripts for *ctl
commands
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> > > This commit creates wrapper scripts for the *ctl commands to use
> > > --dry-run for those that have them, and to allow for log level
> > > setting via ovs-appctl without allowing full access to ovs-appctl.
> > > Tests have been added to make sure that the wrapper scripts
> > > don't actually do anything when asked to perform a write operation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > What's the motivation for all the new "read" scripts?  It seems a
> > > bit confusing to install all of these.  They're also not documented
> > anywhere.
> > >
> > > I see the thread discussing this now.  I'm still not a big fan of
> > > installing this for everyone...
> >
> > I admit that I need to respin with better documentation, but I
> > doubt that alone would make you a fan...
>
> Right.
> Meh, I hit send too soon. I should add that (as Mestery can tell you)
> I'm not a real big fan of this either - it's a necessity...
>
> The scripts seem small enough.  I'm sure you're having to do
> deployment customization to ensure the scripts have the right access
> so your admins can use those, but not the full commands.  Perhaps
> just include the scripts in that customization as well?

Actually, we are trying to avoid that type of customization wherever
possible, which is why the patch was submitted upstream.  If it gets
rejected, well *then* we'll carry it locally.