=== vrubiolo1 is now known as vrubiolo [17:40] rharper: I think https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/232 is good to go [17:40] I believe I addressed all comments [17:45] blackboxsw: excellent, I'll review [19:18] ok addressed thx rharper [22:00] rharper: What purpose does DataSourceNone serve? [22:00] it's a fallback datasource that allows cloud-init to run without a datasource [22:01] basically if we could not find any datasource at all, try to do something reasonable (we still generate host keys, and other bits); [22:04] we've recently had a discussion that DataSourceNone really ought to look more like NoCloud ; https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/pull/203 [22:04] Is there any scenario where it would leave an instance in a state where it is accessible to the user? Other than cloud-init running in a non-cloud scenatio [22:07] fredlef1: I think it depends on the image; if there is included cloud-config , None will return user-data/metadata from the datasource; [22:08] a default user is normally created, host keys are generated; however, without a password or an imported ssh key, I don't see how a user would have access [22:08] this only happens if cloud-init detected a potential datasource, otherwise, cloud-init won't run at all [22:09] so, in your IMDS is down scenario; we'd detect ec2 via host UUID value, and then when we called _get_data() if that failed, we'd fall through to None, which would continue to run modules/final but a stock image won't include any user-data/metadata nor fetch it from remote URLs, etc [22:10] Yes. I have seen that. My latest builds I have been testing for our AMIs have the None datasource removed from the list of candidate datasources for that reason. [22:11] The impact of falling back to DataSourceNone is that cloud-init concludes it's dealing with a new instance [22:12] Yes, it does do that; [22:13] DataSourceNone doesn't seem like something we should ever use after first boot [22:13] the general idea of falling back to the previous DS is new; [22:14] fredlef1: except if you're capturing and deploying again [22:16] if we end up falling back to the previous ds if the current ds is not viable; None is not very useful. [22:16] rharper: Yes, I agree. But, on the other side, the list of things that can go awfully wrong if you capture/snapshot and re-deploy without properly cleaning up various states on your instance is very long already. [22:16] it's harder now than it used to be; but none-the-less, it is very common workflow [22:18] I agree. We see it everyday (both the right way and the wrong way). Clearing up cloud-init states is what people do wrong the least often (does that sentence even make any sense?). [22:18] I'll think about it some more and update my PR later this week. [22:19] There is a way to get this right [22:19] =) [22:19] fredlef1: I'm happy with the direction you're going here [22:20] I've asked the vmware folks to look at your changes as well, as they have a similar scenario where they need to restore the previous instance-id on subsequent boots even if they don't have any new data (which is different than IMDS being down)