[PKG-Openstack-devel] Bug#752454: Bug#752454: websocketproxy incompatible with websockify >= 0.6.0

[Solly Ross]

Hey,
Sorry for the late response.  I'd rather backport my pact that got merged into
master (It should be easily backportable), as it will work with both websockify
0.5.x and 0.6.0, so it won't break any existing installations, etc.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "websockify 0.6.0 does not work at all for all proxy
 modes (novnc and spice)"?  As far as I know, there are no problems proxying either type
of traffic (in fact, websockify is traffic-agnostic -- it doesn't know or care what kind
of traffic it is proxying).

Best Regards,
Solly Ross

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gaudenz Steinlin" <gaudenz at debian.org>
> To: "Tracking bugs and development for OpenStack" <openstack-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org>, 752454 at bugs.debian.org,
> "Solly Ross" <sross at redhat.com>, "Joe Gordon" <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>, jiajun at www.unitedstack.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:10:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [PKG-Openstack-devel] Bug#752454: Bug#752454: websocketproxy	incompatible with websockify >= 0.6.0
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> writes:
> 
> > On 06/24/2014 05:18 AM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> 
> >> Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> writes:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Gaudenz,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for sending this bug report.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm surprised to read this, because I packaged websockify 0.6.0
> >>> after someone on IRC told me that there was an issue with websockify
> >>> 0.5, and that novnc needed >= 0.6.0 in order to work properly.
> >>>
> >>> I've been told that the issue without 0.6.0 is that you get some old
> >>> zombie process after each VNC connections.
> >>>
> >> 
> >> I did not test novnc, so I can't comment much on this. But from looking
> >> at the code I would be very surprised if the current code for
> >> nova-novncproxy in Icehouse would work with websockify 0.6.0.
> >> 
> >>> I have to admit that I don't really use novnc myself, I am a SPICE user
> >>> (I think it's far better and performing that VNC).
> >> 
> >> I did test the spice proxy and the version from Icehouse does not work
> >> with websockify 0.6.0. Did it work for you?
> >> 
> >>>
> >>> I tried to use the patch that you sent as a reference [1].
> >>> Unfortunately, it doesn't apply against the current Icehouse release.
> >>>
> >>> Solly, you're the author of the patch. Do you think a backport to
> >>> Icehouse could be made? This would avoid a lot of headakes for me and I
> >>> would really like avoiding the downgrade of websockify if possible.
> >> 
> >> While I certainly won't oppose a backport of that patch to Icehouse, I'm
> >> don't see much of a dilemma in the short term. As the current status in
> >> Debian unstable with websockify 0.6.0 does not work at all for all proxy
> >> modes (novnc and spice) downgrading is strictly the better alternative
> >> even if there are bugs with novnc and websockify 0.5.1. At least it will
> >> work to some degree again.
> >> 
> >> Long term I agree that migrating to websockify 0.6.0 is preferable. But
> >> I doubt we will have a compatible version in Icehouse soon.
> >> 
> >> Gaudenz
> >
> > Well, have a look over there:
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1048703
> >
> > There's really a problem with websockify < 0.6, so I don't think
> > downgrading is the solution. I don't really want to leave a package that
> > produces zombie processes when we use it.
> >
> > This patch for Nova applies nearly cleanly (with a single 2 lines
> > offset) on the current Icehouse branch:
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94778/
> 
> I just had a short look at the patch and spotted a typo "Hanler" instead
> of Handler in the code. I currently don't have time to further test it.
> Maybe on Thursday.
> 
> >
> > The patch which you referred to earlier, (ie:
> > https://review.openstack.org/91663), while merged in master, also brings
> > some re-factorization, so it might be less appropriate for us than just
> > #94778. Do you think you can try to find the time and see if #94778
> > fixes the issue (I'm busy with other stuff right now, and I'm not sure I
> > can test right away now...)? Maybe carying this one patch as Debian
> > specific patch would be enough.
> 
> If you want to carry a Debian specific patch, then I would rather take
> the patches to websockify reference in
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1048703. Like this you can do the
> minimal changes actaully required to fix the problem. There are two
> patches in there and I don't know if both are required. The first one
> looks like done in a haste and is very unclean (lot's of unneccessary
> whitespace changes). But both were apparently merged into websockify.
> 
> Gaudenz
> 
> --
> Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
> Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
> ~ Samuel Beckett ~
>