[manila-csi-plugin] support muilple share rules #2915

silvacarloss · 2025-06-26T13:15:50Z

What this PR does / why we need it:
Manila currently supports only setting a single access rule, making it difficult to have multiple access rules to a shared file system, which is a common scenario in a cloud where we need to have multiple clients being able to mount the shares simultaneously. This PR introduces support for multiple share access rules by accepting a list of IPs/Cephx users instead of a single string.

Which issue this PR fixes(if applicable):
fixes #2725

Special notes for reviewers:

Author of the change stated that they didn't have a CephFS environment, so could not test it with CephFS.
Another pull request was proposed for this issue [1], but due to maintainers not being able to update and rebase the original author's PR, we opened a new PR.
[1] #2727

Release note:

[manila-csi-plugin] Added support for configuring multiple share access rules to a shared filesystem.

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-26T13:16:01Z

Welcome @silvacarloss!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/cloud-provider-openstack has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-06-26T13:16:02Z

Hi @silvacarloss. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

kayrus · 2025-06-26T14:39:27Z

/ok-to-test

I'll make a review a bit later

k8s-ci-robot · 2025-07-23T21:28:53Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign zetaab for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

gouthampacha

Hi @silvacarloss

Thanks for updating this change. Please see comments inline

examples/manila-csi-plugin/nfs/static-provisioning/preprovisioned-pvc.yaml

pkg/csi/manila/nodeserver.go

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/cephfs.go

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

linux-foundation-easycla · 2025-08-14T14:28:01Z

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

✅ login: moonek / name: Mason Choi (bf72548)

silvacarloss · 2025-08-18T19:10:27Z

/retest

gouthampacha

Hi, a comment inline regarding backwards compatibility; I think you've demonstrated that it works well with NFS, and it'd be nice to test with CephFS as well to be sure. Thanks @silvacarloss

docs/manila-csi-plugin/using-manila-csi-plugin.md

mandre

I believe we need to polish the options for cleanliness and more importantly to avoid breaking backward compatibility. I'm also surprised that it's working at all since we seems to be using a deprecated API call to list accesses which is supposed to return 404.

docs/manila-csi-plugin/using-manila-csi-plugin.md

mandre · 2025-08-21T06:52:47Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/shareadapter.go

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ type ShareAdapter interface {
 	// GetOrGrantAccess first tries to retrieve an access right for args.Share.


Please update the godoc as well.

mandre · 2025-08-21T07:01:54Z

pkg/csi/manila/nodeserver.go

@@ -131,6 +119,7 @@ func (ns *nodeServer) buildVolumeContext(ctx context.Context, volID volumeID, sh
 	// Build volume context for fwd plugin

 	sa := getShareAdapter(ns.d.shareProto)
+	accessRight = getAccessRightBasedOnShareAdapter(sa, accessRights, shareOpts.ShareAccessIDs)


If we're not using the returned value, perhaps replace the variable with _ ?

good question... accessRight was defined in the function signature, so it's empty. When we get to this getAccessRightBasedOnShareAdapter function, it might (or might not) return an access right, which should populate the accessRight value that will be returned, so it's part of assigning a value so it will work with the naked return behavior. I'm kinda new to go and not sure if the naked return is a good practice, so please let me know if this is okay :)

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

mandre · 2025-08-21T08:15:59Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

-	})
+	// Search again because access rights have changed
+	if created {
+		rights, err = args.ManilaClient.GetAccessRights(ctx, args.Share.ID)


Perhaps we can save the extra API call if we append the returned accesses from the calls args.ManilaClient.GrantAccess() to rights.

Also, as a side note, it looks like args.ManilaClient.GetAccessRights() is using gophercloud's shares.ListAccessRights() function, which in turns make a call to a deprecated API. The doc says that it will return 404 starting from microversion 2.45, which is OpenStack Rocky. I suspect we're always getting a 404 error for all calls to args.ManilaClient.GetAccessRights(). This would be problematic on line 39.

It should be using shareaccessrules.List() instead.

OK, this deprecated API call is actually tracked in #2277.

And we're setting the client micro-version to 2.37, which explains why it's working.

Makes sense, this call has to change indeed. Can we make this a part of a follow-up change though? :)

Agree on bumping the microversion with a different change; it's desirable to not depend on an old API version - it'll certainly simplify things, and we'll get to use newer features including the ability to paginate and such.

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

mandre · 2025-08-21T08:29:36Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/cephfs.go

-				klog.V(4).Infof("cephx access right for share %s already exists", args.Share.Name)
+	accessToList := []string{args.Share.Name}
+	if args.Options.CephfsClientID != "" {
+		accessToList = strings.Split(args.Options.CephfsClientID, ",")


Same comment as for NFS, we should document that cephfs-clientID takes a list of comma-separated IDs.

That being said, we probably need a new option in plural form, deprecating cephfs-clientID. Same goes for nfs-shareClient.

Changed the doc. Can we keep the current options for now and follow-up on this later? We should also introduce one of the things I mentioned in the todos: get the node's context and simplify the nodeserver code by only looking up for the access rule that will be used for that given node.

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/cephfs.go

silvacarloss

Thank you very much for the feedback. Please take a look at the changes and replies inline :)

docs/manila-csi-plugin/using-manila-csi-plugin.md

silvacarloss · 2025-08-21T13:04:32Z

pkg/csi/manila/nodeserver.go

@@ -131,6 +119,7 @@ func (ns *nodeServer) buildVolumeContext(ctx context.Context, volID volumeID, sh
 	// Build volume context for fwd plugin

 	sa := getShareAdapter(ns.d.shareProto)
+	accessRight = getAccessRightBasedOnShareAdapter(sa, accessRights, shareOpts.ShareAccessIDs)


good question... accessRight was defined in the function signature, so it's empty. When we get to this getAccessRightBasedOnShareAdapter function, it might (or might not) return an access right, which should populate the accessRight value that will be returned, so it's part of assigning a value so it will work with the naked return behavior. I'm kinda new to go and not sure if the naked return is a good practice, so please let me know if this is okay :)

silvacarloss · 2025-08-21T13:31:07Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/cephfs.go

-				klog.V(4).Infof("cephx access right for share %s already exists", args.Share.Name)
+	accessToList := []string{args.Share.Name}
+	if args.Options.CephfsClientID != "" {
+		accessToList = strings.Split(args.Options.CephfsClientID, ",")


Changed the doc. Can we keep the current options for now and follow-up on this later? We should also introduce one of the things I mentioned in the todos: get the node's context and simplify the nodeserver code by only looking up for the access rule that will be used for that given node.

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

silvacarloss · 2025-08-21T13:57:56Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/shareadapter.go

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ type ShareAdapter interface {
 	// GetOrGrantAccess first tries to retrieve an access right for args.Share.


pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/cephfs.go

silvacarloss · 2025-08-21T17:46:03Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/nfs.go

-	})
+	// Search again because access rights have changed
+	if created {
+		rights, err = args.ManilaClient.GetAccessRights(ctx, args.Share.ID)


Makes sense, this call has to change indeed. Can we make this a part of a follow-up change though? :)

gouthampacha

Thank you @silvacarloss ; this looks good to me hoping CI passes.

mandre · 2025-08-21T19:16:53Z

pkg/csi/manila/shareadapters/shareadapter.go

@@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ type SecretArgs struct {
 }

 type ShareAdapter interface {
-	// GetOrGrantAccess first tries to retrieve an access right for args.Share.
-	// An access right is created for the share in case it doesn't exist yet.
+	// GetOrGrantAccess first tries to retrieve the list of access rights for args.Share.


The function name is now GetOrGrantAccesses.

Oops, fixed it now :)

Signed-off-by: moonek <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Carlos da Silva <[email protected]>

k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jun 26, 2025

k8s-ci-robot requested review from Fedosin and tsmetana June 26, 2025 13:15

k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Jun 26, 2025

k8s-ci-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jun 26, 2025

silvacarloss mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2025

[manila-csi-plugin] support muilple share rules #2727

Closed

k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 26, 2025

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from e100d6b to e7984fb Compare July 23, 2025 21:28

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from e7984fb to e1c1dfc Compare July 24, 2025 12:23

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from e1c1dfc to a4a50ea Compare August 4, 2025 17:03

gouthampacha reviewed Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from a4a50ea to 978dd3d Compare August 14, 2025 13:50

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from cc098b5 to 7e80d0a Compare August 18, 2025 15:27

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from 7e80d0a to bcfd545 Compare August 20, 2025 18:20

gouthampacha reviewed Aug 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

docs/manila-csi-plugin/using-manila-csi-plugin.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mandre reviewed Aug 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from bcfd545 to d308dc2 Compare August 21, 2025 17:52

silvacarloss commented Aug 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

gouthampacha approved these changes Aug 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

mandre reviewed Aug 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

[manila-csi-plugin] support muilple share rules

bf72548

Signed-off-by: moonek <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Carlos da Silva <[email protected]>

silvacarloss force-pushed the support-multiple-share-rules-manila-csi branch from d308dc2 to bf72548 Compare August 21, 2025 19:32

		@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ type ShareAdapter interface {
		// GetOrGrantAccess first tries to retrieve an access right for args.Share.

[manila-csi-plugin] support muilple share rules #2915

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[manila-csi-plugin] support muilple share rules #2915

Conversation

silvacarloss commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

kayrus commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

k8s-ci-robot commented Jul 23, 2025

Uh oh!

gouthampacha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Aug 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

silvacarloss commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

gouthampacha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mandre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

silvacarloss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gouthampacha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Aug 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading