cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: remove dynamic generation of routers modrewrite htaccess files?
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:24:29 GMT

On 27-08-14 19:50, Fred Clift wrote:
> So I've been digging through the code that generates the meta-data
> available to vms (e.g.  http://<your-router>/latest/meta-data/local-ipv4
> <> etc).  The systems design
> is discussed here:
>   though the implementation has evolved somewhat since then and the git
> history is uh, muddled.
> We recently discovered that we have been accidentally messing up the
> .htaccessfile that provides the functionality for this data - inside the
> router it is /var/www/html/latest/.htaccess) with a repair/live-upgrade
> script that would among other things, unpack the original (current)
> tarball.  What is currently in the tarball is a stub version of this file
> with only one of the normally-many mod-rewrite rules...
> I made a patch ( to just add all the
> rules to the default one in the image, but then discovered that around the
> same time someone was updating the regex in the rewrite rules to fix
> another bug...  conflicts between my patch and his got me digging more.
> Which mod-rewrite rules are needed are entirely dependent on the hard-coded
> list of metadata files as seen in these three places:
> server/src/com/cloud/network/element/
> server/src/com/cloud/network/router/
> plugins/hypervisors/baremetal/src/com/cloud/baremetal/networkservice/
> I'm wondering if anyone knows why we currently dynamically generate
> /var/www/html/latest/.htaccess or can see any compelling reasons to not
> just remove the code that updates that file in  There are other
> htaccess files also modified by that script that probably need to be
> dynamic.
> What would you all think of me changing to just leave that file
> alone, combined with my previous patch and the recent regex change as seen
> in
> The only downside I see is that from a code-maintainability standpoint, if
> you add new kinds of metadata in any of those three files then you must
> also remember to update the .htaccess file.  Would a comment in those
> locations be sufficient?

I think so. The current system is pretty prone to errors I think. It 
probably just grew this way, but it's not the best route.

A static entry would be just fine I think.


> Fred Clift

View raw message